Stabbing split mechanism.

[almost_there]

Im not seriously mechanically minded, but I was wondering if any of you roboteers think something like this would work.

Basically, its two very sharp and strong blades one under the other. Angled to a point so they can be stabbed in, and then the mechanism comes forwards and splits, tearing the metal open. Kind of a reverse crusher. Its a real can-opener.

(I had a pic, but I think you get what I mean now)

So, is this viable or been done before? If it was gonna have any real effectiveness, I guess itd have to be hydraulic. That probably means youd have to have some kind of arms on the side to grab the opponent while the blades push in.

[typhoon_driver]

I have no experience with hydraulics so I cant help you on that side but from my experience of current armour technology, it wouldnt work. The majority of bots are armoured in hardox, titanium or layers and layers of various plastics etc. Trying to pierce through is exceptionally tough.

You are also relying on a number of events to take place for the weapon to work. This rarely happens in the arena.

Look at the series 1 and 2 machines that had bits that drew opponents in and then did various things to them. They never worked as the most effective weapons are the ones that rely on a single action. flip, smack, crush etc.

[almost_there]

I think what that means is that youve got to work absolute overtime to create something that is unusual AND effective. It is best to go with a simple design thats true though.

I know pneumatic spikes dont generate the force needed to get through todays armour, but as long as you can hold them in place with something and youre exercising Razer-equivalent hydraulic power into a weapon tough enough to take the pressure, surely you can get through. Hydraulic power is virtually unstoppable, right?

[leorcc]

Hydraulics is definatly not unstopable. Just like pneumatics the larger the cilinder, the more force, but also the more weight. The only main difference is the working pressure and the fact you dont vent the material you use to move the piston. You can have a 8 tonne hydraulic crusher, or a 8 tonne pneumatic crusher, both will be just as effective. All in all, there both 8 tonnes.

[maddox]

Just a Razer/Tiberius kind of hydraulic piercing arm takes a lot of weight.
Tiberius IV has the mayor advantage of being 4 years younger than the latest Razer incarnation.

Now, the idea on its own is not bad. Hydraulic spreaders do excist. But with 10kg for the spreader alone, and the rest of the weapon, capable of piercing the opponents armor- take 3.2mm Hardox as common- you will have to get some weight from drive, armor or weaponspeed.

[lex]

Well of course it wasnt unbeatable even at its best, but it was very difficult to beat. Although the weapon was very effective the real problem for most opponants was that it was nearly impossible to get under it at the front, and due to the excellent driving the front was all most other robots ever saw. Tiberius actually has a more powerful weapon and is certainly much better armoured.
A bit like the heavyweight boxer Mike Tyson in an odd sort of way. At his peak everyone was talking about how hard he hit- and he did hit hard- but the reason a lot of the other big guys couldnt cope with him was his defensive movement and speed...
The ACW was quite neat. Razers design made it very effective against most normal robots, but Tornado put the boot on the other foot by working out how to negate Razers advantage. Crushers like Razer are fairly straightforward to design a defense for, but unless you can swap out your ACW for a more conventional configuration your robot is useless against most non-crushers.

[ady]

unfortunately after a few years of watching robot wars it was the incident with the interchangeable weaponary that tornado used that ruined it for me. even if it was in the rules.

[razerdave]

I had this Hydraulic tearer idea for a vapour-bot I designed, and I also came to the same conclusion that the force needed to peice modern day armour is greater than even the best rammers can produce.

Also, as a Razer fan, I didnt like the ACW, but it was still a good idea, if, in my opinion, a bit of a cheap tactic.

[lex]

I must say I was and remain suprised by the upset the ACW caused with some people. If its in the rules, thats the end of it Idve thought. As I said, Razers design exploits vulnerabilities in the design of most fighting robots. Tornado just did the same thing to them. Theres little point trying to beat something like Razer by using tactics or weapons that are likely to fail. Apart from the obvious issue of getting a bunch of holes in your robot, theres also the way that crushers can smother opponants and control the fight. Unless that can be dealt with you are likely to lose...