UK Kilobots - 1.362kg (3 lbs) Combat Robots

[craig_colliass]

Taken from technobots

This is a bit of a strange big brother to our popular series of GM11a-GM14a series of motors.
It has a 35:1 gear head larger than the others, and sports a bigger, beefier 030 form-factor motor.
The geometry is a bit strange, as the motor sits angled askew from the gearhead. Bizarre, but the motor performance is worth the effort.
Weighing in at only 15grams each, this motor could be very good at mini-sumo or other robot contests needing power in a small package!

Mini-sumo is 500gram pushing robot so I thought it would be ok for a 1000gram fighting robot stall current is over 2 amps!

[dgr]

For the record, those links worked fine for me. lol.

[RogueTwoRobots]

Weird, even when I go to the main site, I get a trojan warning.

Meh, will give it a couple of days.

[team_orr]

dont get me started on antivirus, i got a virus called personal antivirus, sounds like a norton thing but its actualy a scam that blocks every other website and wont let you do anything until you buy the software for $200

[xtreme]

Robot Kits World opened for me.
im using them little gearmotors similar to the ones youv been talking about as my drive motors. 50:1 ratio in using with the 5a sabertooth, Im only going for these motors as want a really low profile robot. kennys using the same as me, kennys also using one of the 298:1 motors in his.

Calum you have that rolling steel chassis so why dont you whack your radio gear in it and test it, see what its like for driving with over 1kg of weight on it.

[john_frizell]

If we are going to create a new weight class, why not make it 3 lbs (1.362 kg)? This would bring it in line with the Beatleweight class in the US which is a popular and well populated class.

[typhoon_driver]

John,

That point was brought up earlier. My view is that there isn't much point building to such a bizarre weight 1.362Kg. Since the upgrade of featherweights to 30lb or 13.6kg there haven't been any transatlantic travels with featherweights that I'm aware of. 1kg is a nice easy to the point weight to build to.

[dgr]

I agree. There's no arguement if it's a kilo weight limit. You are either in weight or not.

[RogueTwoRobots]

I did first mention the idea of matching up the weight limits with the US but having thought about it, 1kg is a much nicer number
Plus it's easier to throw on 360 grams spontaneously than it is to take it off, so if we ever want to compete against the Americans, just add some weight.
Also there's no reason why a 1kg machine can't compete against a 1.362kg machine. Just equates to a 10kg featherweight fighting a 13.6kg featherweight, and there have been numerous occasions where the lighter FW has defeated the heavier FW.

[geoff]

Gentlemen,
Been following this with some interest, and I like what I see. (Mmmm.. a 3lb Pain In The Asp!!) But if I may offer up a couple of comments...

Weight limit, personally I would keep the limit 'RFL friendly' I.E. 3lb / 1.36Kg. Reasons, both other weight classes (f/w & h/w) have been agreed between the RFL & FRA, and to have a class that is very popular in the states with a different weight limit would put us back to were we were a few years ago with the feathers.
Plus with a machine of only 3lb in weight is far easier to transport across the pond than a feather, so I wouldn't be susprised to see a little 'Trans-Atlantic exchange' happening in the future if this class were to take off over here, but only if the two sets of build rules are compatable.

Active weapon rule, This is a tough call, I can see the attraction of active weapons from an audience point of view, but bear in mind that given the level of brushless technology available just how distructive a well engineered 3lb spinner could be. It has been the case at many events in the US that a good proportion of machines are written-off by a good spinner. How many of you want to build a new machine for each event!!
The only way to defend against this type of 'uber spinner' is the 'uber brick' and believe me those fights can be really spectacular. But the only way to build the 'uber brick, is to forgo a weapon.
So, this is the problem with an active weapon rule, have one and risk someone producing a very distructive machine and causing a lot of unnessary damage (and expense) to other builders therefore possibly reducing the number of compeating machines available for future events. Or don't have one and risk the chance of 'boreing box syndrome' but the chance of having more machines survive in the long term.
For what it's worth, as a new class and to make it as accessable as possible to new builders, I would not impose an active weapons rule for now. If you wish to change this in the future once the class is established and popular then fine, but if you go this route take the UK builders along with you and try to do it in consultation with the RFL.