Printable View
Once there is a black and white definition I would be very interested in creating one. Ive found a design that uses 2 motors continuously rotating but if someone said it wasnt a walker would need shooting. Walkers have too many grey areas. Maybe what the roboteers need to do is send designs to the FRA for specific approval just as F1 teams send designs to the fia when the rules get a bit fuzzy. Kane would naturally need to agree to non disclosure.
The same as every body else!Quote:
Originally Posted by ewan
Craig, An example definition: "A limb or an appendage of an animal, used for locomotion or support" as far as I read it it could just be a stick or column of any undefined length... I'm not saying you don't have a particular qualification in mind for why one 1DOF mechanism is more legitimate than another but it would be useful if you could suggest an idea for a rule that covers what you're thinking of.
"Uses 2 motors continuously rotating" - so long as there were two motors per side and they changed in speed relative to one-another at times (and could be independently controlled) then that would be indicative of 2DOF, and so should qualify under the current rules. If this isn't the case then a few of us have mentioned there should be a separate allowance for 1DOF walkers which is less than a 100% bonus.
the method I have uses 1 motor for forwards and backwards and 1 for turning. I think we have to remember what the disadvantage of a walker over a wheel is. Its nothing to do with motors or complex movements, yes a wheel is simpler but the main advantage is the smooth continuos movement. So as long as the leg doesnt give you a smooth continuos movement its ok. This means shufflers dont get the weight advantage because they are a hybrid of a leg form but provide the advantages that wheels give - The smooth continuos movement.
That's something for people to vote on I guess.
Having looked into it quite a bit for this thread I'm giving serious thought to trying a 2DOF beetleweight walker come summer.
If the definition is kept to two degrees of freedom then it is up to the roboteer to determine their design. It's a general statement that means that simple cam designs won't get a full 100% extra. It keeps the rule simple and allows the roboteer to make the design as simple or complex as they choose.
​Yeah, I'm quite happy with it, tbhQuote:
Originally Posted by typhoon_driver
Well I guess that's that sorted.
Got a design in my mind for one again that uses motors but should comply with the 2 degrees of freedom. Might look at making a prototype and if it works well, could even make my next feather a walker
I personally think there should be different weight allowance for different walker types.
for example
the two servo powered walkers, are more complet and requier a lot of power so should have the 100% extra weight allowance.
Craig's robots are a complex cam linkage and have a semi walker gait so should get a 50% weight advantage as it would be needed to make it effective.
And then the meccano walker with the singal cam shaft for the legs movement is useless but yet more complex than wheels so should get 25% extra weight.
that's just what I think as there are many different walker types so should be multiple weight allowances to stop one having a huge advantage over the other
Attachment 3649Attachment 3650Attachment 3651
YEAHH go for it!Quote:
Originally Posted by typhoon_driver