UK Kilobots - 1.362kg (3 lbs) Combat Robots

I don't see the difference between engineering a featherweight weapon and a heavyweight weapon apart from the size difference. Old skool heavyweight style weapons are the ones to look at if you don't have much spare cash or engineering skill. A spike on a pneumatic ram? An angle grinder gearbox and disc attached to a bosch 400? Its been forever since I last saw a chainsaw on a heavyweight! And they are the style of weapon that is good to watch but doesn't do much damage.

Since the featherweights have been brought into line with the USA how many machines have made the trek in either direction? None that I'm aware of. Build to a kilo, a nice easy weight to remember and build to.

Anyway, with 1kg we match up with the Canadians :D

Also, any weight bonuses for non rollers and is a full body drum spinner a bit crazy?

Gary i really like the active weapon idea too but there could be some cool thwack bots and stuff. I kinda just wanna see a mini saint... I dont think many people will build just a box on wheels.
we need some people to build vert spinners, crushers, flippers, lifters, and axes, would be nice to see a clusterbot too.

I don't disagree that robots like the saint are entertaining to watch I just dont want to see another weight limit filled with your standard 4wd rammer bots. I think you could get around it by stating that robots must have an active weapon or a visible static weapon that is in the spirit of an active weapon (more than just a box on wheels)

The spirit part could be left down to the discretion of judges or fellow combatants.

What if we just dead leg everyone that shows up with a box on wheels?

Ye thats a good idea Gary

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xtreme

Gary i really like the active weapon idea too but there could be some cool thwack bots and stuff. I kinda just wanna see a mini saint... I dont think many people will build just a box on wheels.
we need some people to build vert spinners, crushers, flippers, lifters, and axes, would be nice to see a clusterbot too.

---

What is the point of creating visually interesting robots when someone is going to create some dull off - box with an overpowered flywheel and destroy it?

Nail that question and the sport is sorted.

Quote:

---

What is the point of creating visually interesting robots when someone is going to create some dull off - box with an overpowered flywheel and destroy it?

Nail that question and the sport is sorted.

---

You are completely missing the point of this sport! The sport would be sorted if no-one caused anyone with a good looking robot any damage? That's the POINT of this sport! If you don't want damage, don't join in!

Quote:

---

I don't see the difference between engineering a featherweight weapon and a heavyweight weapon apart from the size difference

---

Gary, you've seen my featherweights....lol. Engineering weapons in general is not my strong point. However, I'd be quite happy with the rule in this new weight category cos it's easy enough to put a weapon on robot weighing a kilo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by typhoon_driver

I don't disagree that robots like the saint are entertaining to watch I just dont want to see another weight limit filled with your standard 4wd rammer bots. I think you could get around it by stating that robots must have an active weapon or a visible static weapon that is in the spirit of an active weapon (more than just a box on wheels)

The spirit part could be left down to the discretion of judges or fellow combatants.

---

The Saint is easily enough the excempt to the rule (is that a word?), because I love seeing it in action, because thats what it does ! Action ! Bouncing and dancing all over the place while whacking every inch of the floor, the walls, and sometimes even other robots :)
Thats what people like to see not a bunch of boxes zooming over the floor bumping into eachother...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dgr

You are completely missing the point of this sport! The sport would be sorted if no-one caused anyone with a good looking robot any damage? That's the POINT of this sport! If you don't want damage, don't join in!

---

Damage does come into it but trivializing like that you may as well say the POINT of boxing is to knock to your opponent into a coma!

It isn't, it's to win the fight, in both cases. A fight win was, back in the day, determined by style, control, damage and agression. How much effort was put in, how many opportunities were missed, how skillful people were with the controls, damage done and taken. Now I can't particularly much say any of the other three categories matter anymore.

Not only is this sport in general a sheer learning curve for a lot of newcomers, there are veterans out there who have machines that can pretty much insure they leave with the parts they started off with.

Damage was ALWAYS the overriding factor from the very beginning of Robot Wars. If someone caused more damage to their opponent, they won the fight.
Anyway, I don't really get your point. You say damage is now the only factor in battles, yet we have much LESS damage now than they did on Robot Wars, due to the lack of full combat events. If you can name me one robot from a veteran whose machine has destroyed its opponents without having any defeats or damage done to itself in recent years, I'd love to hear it, cos I sure as hell can't think of one! No-one is guaranteed to leave with all the parts they started with, this statement just simply isn't true.
We NEED more full combat events. I reakon 99% of the people who play this game would agree with that statement. The featherweight UK championships in Newcastle last year were fantastic because the spinners finally got to come out to play. My robot was terminally KOed in its first fight and came last out of all the competitors, but you don't here me complaining cos I expect the damage.
We need a weight class that can be full combat all the time, not just under special circumstances. This could be it, like antweights, but without all the drop-off zone stuff that makes people favour wedges.
And I go back to my original comment, if you don't want damage then don't build a robot!

Quote:

---

f you can name me one robot from a veteran whose machine has destroyed its opponents without having any defeats or damage done to itself in recent years

---

terrorhurtz vs kan opener a few years back at the UK champs in Wales (just to be a pain in the arse) :P

i agree with dave here we should make this weight class full combat all the time and also we aren't making open walls, a pit etc so a push bot wouldn't be right good in a fight anyway, the assault course we are allowing the robots to be mod'd in anyway (but still be in the rules) like taking the armour off and putting bigger wheels on and so on, to be able to go up ramps and over different surfaces, the course will be timed lowest time will get most points and also we are looking at putting short cuts in like swinging doors and things like that and will be changed every event so a route can't just be remembered

Guys guys this talk is too much! You don€™t have to worry about the weapon, no weapon thing this is wiped away by one simple fact.
Robots eventually €œEvolve€ to suite the environment, the key is not the rules, what to allow or reject, but the arena type, if you want spinners to reign in this weight class, make sure all arenas are full combat with no pit, flip out zone or any other distraction. Then its quite simple if you want to win build a robot with a weapon and it would probably be a spinner! If you want diversity then change the stakes, introduce a different environment and the battle results will change.
If someone brings along a boring box put it up against a spinner then it won€™t be boring any more. :mrgreen:

Quote:

---

f you can name me one robot from a veteran whose machine has destroyed its opponents without having any defeats or damage done to itself in recent years


terrorhurtz vs kan opener a few years back at the UK champs in Wales (just to be a pain in the arse)

---

That's just a single fight though Gary. Yeah, sure there have been single fights where someone has destroyed their opponent with no damage to themselves, but there's no one who it happens to every single fight, who is guaranteed to come out working, as suggested.

So, what are people using for motors/wheels/batts etc? :proud:
I guess I should probably experiment myself, seeing as with ants, feathers and heavies everyone pretty much knows the best parts to use whereas ideal components for this class have not yet emerged obviously. Will be interesting actually to see what motors, speedos and battery types come out as the best for cost/effectiveness to weight as machines develop.

I'm thinking of using this robot as a bit of inspiration:
http://www.wa4dsy.net/robot/trisector-robot

and then scale it down and alter it a bit so I'm not completely stealing a design. I don't have the tools to custom make gearboxes to the degree of quality he does but I quite like the way it looks 8)

I was wondering about these motors at 6v
http://www.technobots.co.uk/acatalog/info_1451_019.html
This speedo
http://www.technobots.co.uk/acatalog/Sh ... r_530.html
the wheels i don't know but probably small ones!!!
Weapon 4 100mm dia disc

I have those motors, and that controller, have used them in ants on 7.4v.

those motors and the speed controller are fine, im using the 30-1 motors, u can also buy the motor holders aswell, aswell as wheels which go straight onto the shaft

http://www.technobots.co.uk/acatalog/Sh ... s_420.html - bottom of page for wheels

http://www.technobots.co.uk/acatalog/Sh ... rs_81.html part number 1451-100 for the motor holders

although on the motors you've chose im not sure if the holders would fit onto them because the little gear box is twisted and not inline with the motor if u get my meaning

I looked at those motors but I'm not sure if they're a little underpowered or undersized for a kilobot. So any experiences/ideas of how they might perform would be appreciated :)
The only experience I have at that weight range is super-antweights, just using servos and receiver battery packs. So I'm trying to imagine something four times the weight of that. Servos might cope but would be slow to move unless speed-hacked.

I was also looking at the Technobots range of MFA motors, like the ones used in Zeobots/Battle Ratz but some of the smaller versions. I remember seeing a few machines using them at the UK Robotic Games back in 2006 for the 3kg sumo class and they were quite a good speed with what seemed like decent torque. Haven't looked properly into the weight of them yet, but compared to those 6V ones Craig linked to they'll obviously be heavier. Also means the possibility of going overweight more easily, as the bigger motors will need bigger batteries.

But if those small motors can cope with the weight, could mean plenty of weight for a decent chassis and weapon. Several things to consider *ponders*

EDIT: Just seen Calum's post, so if they are fine then that could be a six-wheel-drive lightweight chassis sorted :-)

I think those motors would be a little bit weedy under a kilo of weight. I mean, if someone's using them and they're fine, then I'll go with that, but I managed to damage one of the gearboxes just by trying to get the wheel off the axle once, so I'm not sure if they'd do. Maybe if you had six...lol

lol jamie, im persuming they are fine as i've got them and so has kenny and tom- with slightly different gearing, i've tried one on a battery with the wheel on, and one alone seems to have decent enough power

if everyone buys these motors and they end up being usless- although im sure they wont, please dont chase me with pitch forks

Lol, I'm having to rethink my six-motors strategy as at £12 a pop that's £72 for drive motors alone! Think I might try and rustle something up with speed-hacked servos in a 4WD formation, kinda like Alan's FW Omega, but with a lifting arm like Trisector.

Wait, what am I saying?! I'm a Scot, therefore it should be spinner or nothing!

I am looking to use the 100:1 mini MFA motors as sold in Maplins, and used on my ant arena pit mech, and according to the web, they are 72g, so :)

I was thinking cheap cordless screwdrivers as motors, gearboxes and possibly a source of batteries (I think the second cheapest from B&Q weigh ~260g) so hopefully with some careful case removal and mounting that will go down.

These work quite well, have a metal spur gear box and are cheap as chips. Speed is respectable on an 11.1V lipo but could do with a bit more oomph!! so a higher voltage would be good. Run time on a 300mAh lipo is half an hour or more.

Andy


http://robokitsworld.com/index.php?main ... ucts_id=50
http://robokitsworld.com/index.php?main ... cts_id=171
http://robokitsworld.com/index.php?main ... cts_id=204

Cheap cordless screwdrivers are good. I built a 2 lb (908g) robot out of two of them from Argos at £5 each and used the batteries as well. But even using cheap plastic wheels from a model car glued to the screwdriver bits [which works well] the drive units weigh 225 g each. So two of them will eat up almost half of your weight allowance.

Quote:

---

http://robokitsworld.com/index.php?m...products_id=50
http://robokitsworld.com/index.php?main ... cts_id=171
http://robokitsworld.com/index.php?main ... cts_id=204

---

According to my antivirus those links are trojans and I can't open them.

Ditto, thank god for Avast :)

I used cheap cordless screwdrivers for a 3kg sumo bot at the UKRG. Was a bargain really as they were £3.99 each and that gave me my motors and batteries. Weighed about 1.27kg or something total but it was slow and I found grip to be poor, although I was using narrow wheels. But you get what you pay for I suppose. They are weighty though as mentioned but may work quite well if you gear one down for use as a lifter weapon or something.

norton stopped it as well

well try going to the main site http://www.robotkitsworld.com, going to motors for the motors, wheels for the wheels and hardware for the motor brackets. Virus checkers can often see question marks in links as an issue.

Andy

Taken from technobots

This is a bit of a strange big brother to our popular series of GM11a-GM14a series of motors.
It has a 35:1 gear head larger than the others, and sports a bigger, beefier 030 form-factor motor.
The geometry is a bit strange, as the motor sits angled askew from the gearhead. Bizarre, but the motor performance is worth the effort.
Weighing in at only 15grams each, this motor could be very good at mini-sumo or other robot contests needing power in a small package!

Mini-sumo is 500gram pushing robot so I thought it would be ok for a 1000gram fighting robot stall current is over 2 amps!

For the record, those links worked fine for me. lol.

Weird, even when I go to the main site, I get a trojan warning.

Meh, will give it a couple of days.

dont get me started on antivirus, i got a virus called personal antivirus, sounds like a norton thing but its actualy a scam that blocks every other website and wont let you do anything until you buy the software for $200 :evil:

Robot Kits World opened for me.
im using them little gearmotors similar to the ones youv been talking about as my drive motors. 50:1 ratio in using with the 5a sabertooth, Im only going for these motors as want a really low profile robot. kennys using the same as me, kennys also using one of the 298:1 motors in his.

Calum you have that rolling steel chassis so why dont you whack your radio gear in it and test it, see what its like for driving with over 1kg of weight on it.

If we are going to create a new weight class, why not make it 3 lbs (1.362 kg)? This would bring it in line with the Beatleweight class in the US which is a popular and well populated class.

John,

That point was brought up earlier. My view is that there isn't much point building to such a bizarre weight 1.362Kg. Since the upgrade of featherweights to 30lb or 13.6kg there haven't been any transatlantic travels with featherweights that I'm aware of. 1kg is a nice easy to the point weight to build to.

I agree. There's no arguement if it's a kilo weight limit. You are either in weight or not.

I did first mention the idea of matching up the weight limits with the US but having thought about it, 1kg is a much nicer number :)
Plus it's easier to throw on 360 grams spontaneously than it is to take it off, so if we ever want to compete against the Americans, just add some weight.
Also there's no reason why a 1kg machine can't compete against a 1.362kg machine. Just equates to a 10kg featherweight fighting a 13.6kg featherweight, and there have been numerous occasions where the lighter FW has defeated the heavier FW.

Gentlemen,
Been following this with some interest, and I like what I see. (Mmmm.. a 3lb Pain In The Asp!!) But if I may offer up a couple of comments...

Weight limit, personally I would keep the limit 'RFL friendly' I.E. 3lb / 1.36Kg. Reasons, both other weight classes (f/w & h/w) have been agreed between the RFL & FRA, and to have a class that is very popular in the states with a different weight limit would put us back to were we were a few years ago with the feathers.
Plus with a machine of only 3lb in weight is far easier to transport across the pond than a feather, so I wouldn't be susprised to see a little 'Trans-Atlantic exchange' happening in the future if this class were to take off over here, but only if the two sets of build rules are compatable.

Active weapon rule, This is a tough call, I can see the attraction of active weapons from an audience point of view, but bear in mind that given the level of brushless technology available just how distructive a well engineered 3lb spinner could be. It has been the case at many events in the US that a good proportion of machines are written-off by a good spinner. How many of you want to build a new machine for each event!!
The only way to defend against this type of 'uber spinner' is the 'uber brick' and believe me those fights can be really spectacular. But the only way to build the 'uber brick, is to forgo a weapon.
So, this is the problem with an active weapon rule, have one and risk someone producing a very distructive machine and causing a lot of unnessary damage (and expense) to other builders therefore possibly reducing the number of compeating machines available for future events. Or don't have one and risk the chance of 'boreing box syndrome' but the chance of having more machines survive in the long term.
For what it's worth, as a new class and to make it as accessable as possible to new builders, I would not impose an active weapons rule for now. If you wish to change this in the future once the class is established and popular then fine, but if you go this route take the UK builders along with you and try to do it in consultation with the RFL.