Wooden Robot Class

How about this for a draft set of rules?

30lb wooden class rule set

The primary aim of this robot class is to provide a completely different challenge and type of combat to regular featherweight (30lb) competition.

1. The primary building material used must be wood. Any type of wood is allowed.

2. Metal is allowed in limited quantities in the following instances
2.1. Drive systems (walkers must use wooden legs)
2.2. The internal workings of weapon systems such as cogs, gears, pneumatic rams, chains etc.
2.3. Threaded rod and nut with a motor attached are allowed for the purposes of home made linear actuators
2.4. Weaponry should at the sharp end should be based on wood working tooling. This can either be manual or power operated in origin
2.5. A metal box containing all electronics may be used for protection purposes of valuable components however this should be as small as reasonably possibly and should not constitute part of the external armour of the robot.

3. All remaining FRA rules shall be followed for the weight class (sharp edge protection, activation LED, radio fail safes etc).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by typhoon_driver

How about this for a draft set of rules?

30lb wooden class rule set

The primary aim of this robot class is to provide a completely different challenge and type of combat to regular featherweight (30lb) competition.

1. The primary building material used must be wood. Any type of wood is allowed.

2. Metal is allowed in limited quantities in the following instances
2.1. Drive systems (walkers must use wooden legs)
2.2. The internal workings of weapon systems such as cogs, gears, pneumatic rams, chains etc.
2.3. Threaded rod and nut with a motor attached are allowed for the purposes of home made linear actuators
2.4. Weaponry should at the sharp end should be based on wood working tooling. This can either be manual or power operated in origin

2.5. A metal box containing all electronics may be used for protection purposes of valuable components however this should be as small as reasonably possibly and should not constitute part of the external armour of the robot.

3. All remaining FRA rules shall be followed for the weight class (sharp edge protection, activation LED, radio fail safes etc).

---

Seems sensible. Essentially, anything that can be made of wood, should be made of wood.

Looks like we're actually making some head way!

Just spent the best part of today testing Bitzawood out, smashing up wood, metal, plastic, all sorts. I'll post a video later.
It should hopefully dispel somethings.

Li-Pos are fine. To satisfy the 'not written' metal protection rule I have a block of mild steel under my Li-Po the same size as the battery. Besides the rule was in place to protect the arena floor, but it's only going to run in the RC arena, so it'll be fine. Plus a fire inside a wooden robot can only end AWESOME!

One thing I did learn today was that Circular saw blades are very tough, and don't carry ANY inertia. The spinning element on BW is 1.5kgs, but that's all in the centre so it fouled and stopped on pretty much everything, but did in the meantime make some awesome gashes, dust and splinters.

Also, thanks Gary for drafting out those rules.

We should also add in the class thesis, which is written somewhere else in the topic. It's something like:

Cheap and easy to build and repair.
Level playing field for all competitors.
More destruction.
Friendly attitude and have fun!

Just a suggestion, make standard drill motors a requirement?

Why? ^

Edit: also, looks very reasonable, Gary. And PJ, I am busting to see the weapon in action. :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4jrcrYhCOo

I see no advantage in specifying motors. If we say that you are only allowed drill motors then the gimson motors are instantly out.

By specifying drill motors it makes every robot cheaper, it tells beginners that drill motors are the way to go and not to try and make there own gearboxes, makes it less attractive to build rammers as it will not be much more powerful than any other bot, it puts everyone in a level playing field- it doesn't matter how much you can spend on your robot as it has to be made from wood and us still motors

Ok and what if i happen to have some MFA or gimsons sitting around or get them cheap second hand? Bosch 35s are also out in that instance. I am against specifying motors

Yeh we're not specifying motors. Some classes limit a can size for drive (say nothing above 700) but even that has it's issues.

I'm with Gary and PJ on this one. The construction of the robot would put them all on a reasonable playing field.

Are there any major issues with the rules as they are written above?

Not from me. Because it states wood working tools, I may have to make a flipper out of hand saw blades :).

I reckon with lots of plywood bracing a LP flipper would be no problem. Thinking about that design leads me to another thought- what about bearings, should plate-mounted bearings (e.g. http://www.technobotsonline.com/flanged ... -12mm.html) be permitted or not, because they would basically be adding a metal structural element distributing loads over a wider area of wood, but in the rules thus far might be considered a mechanical/drive component?

Bearing should be fine in my eyes hense why i left the inner weaponry mechanics down to interpretation. I don't think we should be limiting on the internal mechanics of weaponry. As long as the main structure is made from wood and the business end came from a wood working tool then how it is activated should be left to the designer.

I was thinking about adding an additional rule of no brushless tech. Thoughts?

I would be inclined to agree.

What about a weight limit on KE/Inertia weaponary?

I'm fine with the proposed rules so far.

I help out at a local technical academy where students are involved in a national scheme called 'Greenpower'. This is a structured scheme to promote learning by building battery operated EV's, which are raced at organised events around the country. There are strict rules for Greenpower EV builds in respect of safety, motor power and battery capacity, so that there its a clear level playing field, leaving overall design and driving skills as the main variables dictating position on the race track. Combat robotics does of course need greater flexibility in the rules in respect of build but I do feel that the use of one primary and inexpensive material does bring the hobby much closer to encouraging more young people to take an active interest in combat robotics and EV's in general. The spin-offs are significant in respect of introducing youngsters to technology. Everybody likes to win, or at least feel that they are in with a good chance of winning and this 'level playing field' class should bring that dream much closer to newcomers.

Hopefully, hobby organisers will see fit to promote this class heavily. I see no problem with spinners being restricted to full arena events for safety reasons, but I do feel that if this class is to be successful in recruiting into the hobby, then all events will need to run contests in this class.

Hoppy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hoppy

Everybody likes to win, or at least feel that they are in with a good chance of winning and this 'level playing field' class should bring that dream much closer to newcomers.

---

That's exactly what I'm trying to achieve. I really admire the work of the roboteers, but seeing their builds can also be quite demoralising when you just can't complete on their level of, funds, tools, resources, knowledge etc.
That's one of the main reason we build our robots from scrap, it's a completely different approach.

Currently the level of interest from Event Organisers is low, and I can't blame them, they have a show to run and an already full schedule. The FWs are often considered a bi-product of the HW shows, and the FW events are infrequent.

this class will also allow lesser used weapons such as axes and ramming spikes a better chance of being effective weapons because of the wooden shells

If this class actually takes off, might it be an idea too construct an arena for it so they actually have a chance at fighting more than once a year?

And drill weapons will finally, after all these years, be effective!

There would be little point in a wooden robot only arena as it would technically have to take the same abuse as a grade 2F arena

Frequency of events is probably a big sticking point to people taking-up the hobby. I have been messing about for a few years building and altering a combat type robot just for the fun of building. Apart from going to a couple of arena events with my kids a few years ago, have never entered a bot. I'm tempted to have a go at building a wooden bot but a couple of events a year does not really warrant the effort, especially as I would ideally need to upgrade my old 40MHz kit and invest in some decent batteries!

Hoppy

I wouldn't expect you'd need more than 5ish millimetres of polycarbonate to stop a <1kg saw blade, even going 4000rpm- the issue with the XFM & old feather arenas was usually about sealing all the cracks around the polycarbonate and having a net roof rather than sheet based roof, solve those issues and you don't really need a Class 2 arena. Of course limitations on the size and speed of the spinning mass would have to be defined but I don't expect that to be a problem in this class as high-KE based weapons are pretty much ruled out on a structural basis.

So there is potential for an arena in this class?

Only if
a) someone has the money, time and space to make one
and b) an extra arena class were added to the FRA guidelines or the event was done on separate insurance to the FRA's

I think clearly a) is the bigger issue

Gents, there is zero chance of another arena for this class. It WOULD have to be a grade 2F arena if spinning weapons are to be used. End of story

Quote:

---

Spinning weaponry of any sort is not permitted in a Class 3 arena

---

A quote from the rules

Quote:

---

an extra arena class were added to the FRA guidelines or the event was done on separate insurance to the FRA's

---

Disagree completely Gary, the only reason Class 2 is so stringent at the moment is because it's a 'catch-all' class covering the biggest of feather spinners. Change the build rules, change the arena rules.

By all means chase building another arena. I will not run any spinning weapons in an arena that i'm not happy will contain the worst case scenarios.

on a different subject.
i have just over 6kg of what i think could be oak.
when i look at the rings they are like 1mm apart compared to pine which is 1-2cm.
do you need more info to identify it.
its over 30years old and is perfectly useable for a robot.
as its 4-5 cm thick it looks like it could take a battering.
i may check using the density and weight-cm.
thanks

turns out its old pine.
far stronger than new pine though.
should make tough armour and was easy to jigsaw through.

A thick lump of old Mahogany would make a good chassis.

What is the likelihood of this wooden class taking-off with its own non-spinner events in Class 3 arena's? Obviously, there is little point in building a wooden bot if the FRA does not see fit to introduce this class to test for interest in it.

Hoppy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ewan

Disagree completely Gary, the only reason Class 2 is so stringent at the moment is because it's a 'catch-all' class covering the biggest of feather spinners. Change the build rules, change the arena rules.

---

Spinners belong in a class2F, no matter how they are built.

I say we just make a large flat area and give everyone goggles, job done!
Although it would be more safe than this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnXmHCpFjhY

Might not be as safe, but sure looks fun :lol:

Good music too

This is only my opinion but I think you are never going to get wooden bots as its own weight class and have dedicated fights at events even with your own arena as space is always limited. But i don't think wooden robots have to fight wooden robots, jonny 2 by 4 proved that a wooden bot can stand up well in full combat if built well. You may manage to have a all wooden bot whiteboard at robo challenge events. It that is about it. I think you should aim to promote wood as a viable armour and chassis material for first bots and other bots.

It sort of negates the idea of a level playing field, cheap to build and easy to repair though.

I see exactly what you mean but as Gary says there will alway be people who can build a better robot than a beginner, I think a better way of encouraging beginners is to have prizes for best newcomer etc.

i am in favour of the best beginner prize :)