Wooden Robot Class

[PJ-27]

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.

[razerdave]

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

[typhoon_driver]

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

[razerdave]

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

[ewan]

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?

[typhoon_driver]

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?

[PJ-27]

I would be inclined to agree.

What about a weight limit on KE/Inertia weaponary?

[Hoppy]

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

[PJ-27]

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.

[tweedermeister]

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