Proposed Rule Changes

All things antweight

Moderators: BeligerAnt, petec, administrator

Post Reply
User avatar
Shakey
Posts: 1119
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:38 pm
Location: Reading

Proposed Rule Changes

Post by Shakey »

I am making a new thread so all proposals are clearly at the top, no digging needed. Now prepare your browser and grab a cuppa. I spent long enough recoding the html behind the rules I found quite a few oddities. This is just my personal opinion and is very open to debate/discussion. All will be voted on before any implementations.

LOTS OF PROPOSALS - Please quote the rule number when you suggest alterations to the ammendment

PROPOSED RULE AMENDMENT
2l) Batteries must not contain liquid acid, or electrolyte, or exceed a maximum of 24 volts.
2l) batteries must not contain liquid acid, liquid electrolyte (With the exception of liquid electrolytes in gel form).
REASON: Yeah LiPo's were actually banned under this rule technically.

PROPOSED NEW RULE:
2p) Voltages within a robot may not intentionally exceed 24V.
REASON: Moving the voltage part from 2l to a new rule as now intentional voltage boosting is covered (as I imagine was in the original intent of the rule). Non intentional voltage spikes (ie. noise, ESC chip internal boosts for gate switching) would still be fine so no need to worry there.

PROPOSED RULE AMENDMENT
3c)At least half of the edge of the arena must be unwalled, to allow robots to drop directly into the ditch that surrounds the arena. 50mm is the recommended height for arena walls.
Not sure what value to put here (as a percent) if someone knew the value that the last AWS's arena had that would be grand.
REASON: It's not done like this any more.

PROPOSED RULE AMENDMENT
4c)When any robot is immobile or lacks controlled motion then a judge will call cease and the driver will have ten seconds to demonstrate that control has been restored, otherwise the robot will have lost.
4c) If, during a fight, a robot is supected of being immobile or lacking controlled motion a judge will begin an announced 10 second count down. If during this time the robot is able to demonstrate controlled movement (Normally agreed as any movement in an intended direction regardless of method) the countdown will be stopped, otherwise the robot will have lost. Any contact between the two robots during the countdown will cause it to be reset.
REASON: It's not done like this any more. This was a tricky one to reword to try and capture the current process. I also tried to capture the fact that any movement (even if produced through one wheel) that we consider controlled (Ie. can move in the roboteers intended direction) is encompassed. This is based off the precedent set at events (Such as a one wheeled spinni at Ant Freeze, or various robots using one wheel and a servo horn). It may not be particularly effective movement but it is controlled. Any suggestions on this rule are greatly appreciated.

PROPOSED RULE REMOVAL
5a)Contestants must register their frequencies (including which crystals they have) with the event organiser at least 7 days before the contest.
REASON: It isn't really relevant or even considered anymore. Especially if the banning of commercial vehicles goes through (which is very likely). 2.4Ghz systems are some of the cheapest these days which do not require crystals.

PROPOSED RULE AMENDMENT
5d) Robots will be weighed by scales that are accurate to at least one gram (the weight limit (2a) is judged as the 'fighting weight' entering the arena).
5d) Robot will be weighed by scales accurate to at least +/- one gram. An allowance of plus one gram is given to account for measurement error.
REASON: Reflecting how weight is handled these days, I can't remember if it was 1g or 2g though. I went with 1g as when weighed twice 2x0.5g error = 1g.

PROPOSED RULE AMENDMENT
5i)If opposing robots have left the arena simultaneously (e.g. because they struck each other so hard that they flew apart) then the following will occur
i. The battle will be paused
ii. The robots will be placed straight back into the arena, in their former starting positions, without repairs.
iii. The battle will be restarted
4i) If opposing robots have left the arena simultaneously (e.g. because they struck each other so hard that they flew apart) the battle shall be paused, the robots returned to the starting positions in their current state and the battle restarted.
REASON: It is unnecessarily long. Without repairs doesn't cover a switch flick. Are we going to wrap the 'aggressor' rule into here where one robot pushes the other out but they leave at the same time (I know it's rare)? Move it to section 4 as it is a combat rule not a contest guideline.

PROPOSED RULE AMENDMENT
4b) A robot that falls off the arena has lost.
4b) A robot that falls fully off the arena, or comes fully into contact with the battlebox bordering the ditch, has lost.
REASON: Reflecting how it is currently handled. By using fully the rule intends that robots with bits of tape/string/wire (Such as a damaged robot, or robots with floppy bits like nuts) are not punished from the size where though the chassis may be fully in the arena the floppy extremities may cause a loss through a technicality. Hard parts of a robot (such as an overhead bar) would be considered full contact, basically if it can push with it it would be considered an extremity that has full contact. It also covers robots bouncing off the sides (Which was technically allowed though widely agreed a loss).

PROPOSED RULE AMENDMENT
2a)Weight limits: (also see rule 5d)
Antweight roller: 150g
Antweight walker/shufflebot: 225g
Fleaweight roller: 75g
Fleaweight walker/shufflebot: 113g

Where a clusterbot is composed of a rotary and a walking/shuffling botlet, then the following formula or graph apply:
(Total weight of rollers) = 150 - ((2/3) * (Total weight of walkers))
or
(Total weight of walkers) = 1.5 * (150 - (Total weight of rollers))
2a)Weight limits, walkers/shufflebots are allowed a 50% increase in the maximum weight rounded up to the nearest gram (As detailed below): (also see rule 5d)
Antweight: 150g (225g for a walker/shufflebot)
Fleaweight: 75g (113g for a walker/shufflebot)
Nanoweight: 25g (38g for a walker/shufflebot)

Where a clusterbot is composed of a combination of rotary and walking/shuffling botlets, then the following formula or graph [newer graph using precentages] apply:
(Total weight of rollers) = 150 - ((2/3) * (Total weight of walkers))
or
(Total weight of walkers) = 1.5 * (150 - (Total weight of rollers))

REASON: We have Nanos now. :D Also just tidying/clarifying.

PROPOSED RULE AMENDMENT
2b) Size limits: robots must fit completely (including aerial) inside a cube of the following dimensions
Fleaweight: three inches (76.2mm)
Antweight: four inches (101.6mm

Robots may only expand from their size limit once they are in the arena, and only if the expansion is instigated by remote control (i.e. not just by being springy).
2b) Size limits: robots must fit completely inside a cube of the following dimensions
Antweight: 101.6mm (4.00 inches)
Fleaweight: 76.2mm (3.00 inches)
Nanoweight: 50mm (1.97 inches)

Robots may only expand from their size limit once the battle commences.

REASON: Added nanos, standardising. Springy rule changed to prevent robots expanding before start and by the inherent nature springy things are still not allowed as they would expand before the start of a fight.

PROPOSED RULE AMENDMENT
2c)Robots must have an externally accessible way of being shut down (e.g. a power switch, removable link or battery plug).
2c)Robots must have an easily accessible way of being safely shut down (e.g. a power switch, removable link or battery plug away from active weapons).
REASON: It's reflects how a lot of non dangerous robots don't use switches, it can stay as is but it isn't really enforced. This way keeps us safe while admitting that some robots are fine without switches.

EXTRA THOUGHT
2i) The botlets of a clusterbot must altogether meet the size and weight limits of the class in which they are competing (i.e. all three botlets of an antweight clusterbot must all fit in the same four inch cube at once), but if two fleaweights are competing as botlets of an antweight cluster then they must each conform to fleaweight size and weight restrictions.
Why do fleas get special treatment here?

5h) All teams must be self-contained in terms of driver, transmitter, robots and battery packs, i.e. these cannot be shared with another team.
What's happening with this guy?

ALL RULES WILL BE VOTED ON BEFORE BEING IMPLEMENTED, MAKE SURE YOUR VOICE IS HEARD
Nuts And Bots - For all your components and ready built antweights!

Alex Shakespeare - Team Shakey / Nuts And Bots / Team Nuts:
AWS 44, 45, 49, 51 & 55 Winner - Far too many robots!
Rapidrory
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2013 9:54 pm

Re: Proposed Rule Changes

Post by Rapidrory »

So. Many. Proposals O.o

I agree with them on the whole, though have a few points on the wording:
2l) batteries must not contain liquid acid, liquid electrolyte (With the exception of liquid electrolytes in gel form).
Would be better as:

2l) batteries must not contain liquid acid or liquid electrolyte.

LiPo's would then be implicitly allowed in the same way SLAs are allowed in higher weight classes. No need to specify really.

4b) A robot that falls fully off the arena, or comes fully into contact with the battlebox bordering the ditch, has lost.
Would be better as:

4b) A robot that falls fully off the arena, or comes fully into contact with the end walls of the battlebox bordering the ditch, has lost.

Just for clarity's sake...
Rory Mangles - Team Nuts

Robots: Nuts 2 and many more...

NanoTwo Motor Controllers: https://nutsandbots.co.uk/product/nanotwodualesc
Remote-Controlled Dave
Posts: 3716
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Antrim, Northern Ireland
Contact:

Re: Proposed Rule Changes

Post by Remote-Controlled Dave »

I still don't agree with the "if you hit the outer walls you lose" thing. I think a robot has to go down the ditch to lose. If you hit the outer wall and land back on the surface, then you carry on. I don't think it is "widely viewed as a loss" at all, its something Andy invented one time that stuck but I don't think its a commonly held opinion, nor is it in the rules.

If you're on the arena you're in, if you're down the hole you're out. Its that simple isn't it?

If you hit the outer walls and bounce back in then its often your opponent's fault anyway (too powerful a weapon, a mistimed flip, a bad disc hit etc), why should you lose because of it? It just favours building a robot that can boot anything out from the middle of the arena.

Would it not also mean anyone who drives into either of the other two walls would lose? They are as part of the battlebox as the ones on the pit sides...I think its inconsistent nonsense that needs a full stop ASAP personally. "A robot that falls off the arena has lost" is what the rule states and there isn't a debate there. If one of Nuts dangle bits hits the ditch but the robot doesn't fall off, it's still in. Simple.

Other than that I think the other proposals look fairly sound. I would leave the "self-contained" rule as is but with the amendment "a driver may help in the operation of one other team's clusterbot, providing they drive the lesser botlet (where obvious).

The gram tolerance is widely accepted at 2g.

Also, the arena walls rule, how about a simple "an acceptable amount of the arena must be a drop off zone or pit"? Then if everyone agrees before the event to the amount an arena has, any combination can be used.
Die Gracefully Robotics
Winner - AWS 39
AntRoboteer
Posts: 441
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:01 pm

Re: Proposed Rule Changes

Post by AntRoboteer »

Remote-Controlled Dave wrote:I think a robot has to go down the ditch to lose. If you hit the outer wall and land back on the surface, then you carry on.
That is exactly what I was thinking. I think it should be worded something like this:

4b) Any robot that falls off of the main arena surface and lands touching the bottom of the ditch will be deemed to have lost.
User avatar
Shakey
Posts: 1119
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:38 pm
Location: Reading

Re: Proposed Rule Changes

Post by Shakey »

How about just simply:

4b) A robot that falls fully off the arena has lost.

Pretty much the same but stopping the 'tiny part of the robot touched the bottom of the ditch therefore is out' interpretation?

"Would it not also mean anyone who drives into either of the other two walls would lose? They are as part of the battlebox as the ones on the pit sides...I think its inconsistent nonsense that needs a full stop ASAP personally."

That's why I said those bordering the ditch. But if people prefer the robots being able to bounce back in that's fine with me. :)
Nuts And Bots - For all your components and ready built antweights!

Alex Shakespeare - Team Shakey / Nuts And Bots / Team Nuts:
AWS 44, 45, 49, 51 & 55 Winner - Far too many robots!
Remote-Controlled Dave
Posts: 3716
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Antrim, Northern Ireland
Contact:

Re: Proposed Rule Changes

Post by Remote-Controlled Dave »

It was actually voted on at the last debate, and the wording that it currently is was decided on then by majority vote, so I don't really see the point on debating it again. I'll try and find the forum reference...
If you want to add the word "fully" for clarity, I don't object.
Die Gracefully Robotics
Winner - AWS 39
Remote-Controlled Dave
Posts: 3716
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Antrim, Northern Ireland
Contact:

Re: Proposed Rule Changes

Post by Remote-Controlled Dave »

Here is the lengthy conversation from last year that led to 4b) and 5i) being added to the rules if anyone fancies reading through. It was voted to add both by committee and that the wording was undebateable (that's not a word Dave!)

http://robotwars101.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=2160

I really don't think it needs going through again. If someone is still claiming hitting the outer wall or roof counts as out, they are wrong. Its that simple.
Die Gracefully Robotics
Winner - AWS 39
User avatar
Shakey
Posts: 1119
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:38 pm
Location: Reading

Re: Proposed Rule Changes

Post by Shakey »

Fair enough, I didn't look at past rules debates when I went through.
Nuts And Bots - For all your components and ready built antweights!

Alex Shakespeare - Team Shakey / Nuts And Bots / Team Nuts:
AWS 44, 45, 49, 51 & 55 Winner - Far too many robots!
Post Reply