Talk to the FRA

**woody** · 14th October 2010, 09:25

http://www.teamonslaught.fsnet.co.uk/LegMech.gif

**typhoon_driver** · 14th October 2010, 10:15

I may be wrong but I don't think there is any weight advantage for shuffle bots now.

Yup Craig you're right.

A reliable combat walker, I don't want to appear rude, but after making Pilgrim I would like to see that.

This is the main problem though. If I turn up at an event with a machine that is in essence a cam with a leg attached (skuttle from technogames) am I going to get any weight advantage? I think most people would argue no but then where do we draw the line? Just to clarify I was meaning a very basic cam system for a few kilo. Anything with the complexity of the pilgrim would require a great deal more weight

**james...venom** · 14th October 2010, 11:18

Its very tricky to draw the line. Alan that walking cam mechanism looks good to me for being a walker. I know its good to have open rules however as you already know it requires a great deal of investment to produce a machine just to have it banned for its second event. I imagine Jonno was fuming and rightly so after putting in so much work.

**woody** · 14th October 2010, 12:38

I believe the foot / leg action meets the Walker criterion ...I would however get a ruling from the governing body before embarking on an an expensive build.

**craig_colliass** · 14th October 2010, 12:45

A walker is

1/ a machine that is supported by it's own legs and only it's legs 100% of the time including stopping and turning.

2/ The foot must move in a pattern that simulates a walking gate, (like a bird, horse, insect, spider or human etc) what is not allowed is a foot or leg that rotates around.

3/ shuffle type mechanisms are feet, pads, blocks or plates with no legs, run on a cam or crank systems, sometimes the feet do not leave the ground they do not replicate in any way, any natural animal type walking gate.

So in closing lets say a walker must have a pronounced obvious walking gate.
(this means the foot is placed on the ground the robot is propelled forward by the legs action,
the foot lifts of the ground is moved forward through the air and placed back on the ground completing the cycle.

Jonno have you any pictures of the walking mechanism that you had that was banned, I would like to see if my
definition would let this robot back in to play, or exclude it.

I think that it should be that if the input to the system turns continuously it's a shuffler regardless of what mechanism you use to walk.

If we use your criteria no rotational motive force at all, then I can't think of one UK robot that was a walker!

**james...venom** · 14th October 2010, 13:42

Craig does that mean the giant walking robot you brought to the uk champs is not a walker as that has an input to the system that turns continuously

I also would allow the walking mechanism that alan has drawn.

**craig_colliass** · 14th October 2010, 15:46

I think I misunderstand Jonno's statement/quote, so I will wait for his input, but it dose sound like that at first glance.

I have been thinking of how to use only linear actuators to make a walker, the cost, complexity and fragility of such a machine in the arena would make it a none starter.

The machine above looks great but did it ever fight? could it ever win?

This is another one that never won much but it did look good

**Scorpionbuilder** · 14th October 2010, 16:03

Hi All

Your input is fantastic, some of it getting very technical but at the end of the day what we are looking for is a simple definition of what is a walker. I am starting to think, but always open to suggestions, that if the foot makes a circular motion it is a shufflebot but if it makes an elliptical movement it should be a walker no matter what mechanism runs it.

We do have to come up with something that defines what a walker is without stiffling creativity and making easy for tech-checkers and the EO's to determine whether it is a walker or a shufflebot.

Keep it coming it's been a very interesting discussion so far.

John