Walker rule clarification? Unusual design.

Please post all questions and answers in here. This way people can easily see if someone else has the same problem.

Moderators: BeligerAnt, petec, administrator

User avatar
GeorgeR
Posts: 280
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 9:53 pm
Location: Bath, Somerset

Re: Walker rule clarification? Unusual design.

Post by GeorgeR »

The issue with the current rule is clearly the interpretation of the term "final drive output", which i would say is far from 100% clear in some cases.

My view is that "final drive output" should be interpreted as the bit of the robot that provides the force that actually drives/propels the robot. So for a roller (or "conventional" walker) it's obviously the wheels (or feet) pushing against the floor that make it move, whereas for a hovercraft or drone it's the propeller pushing against the air that makes it move. Consequently I feel that on a bristlebot it is the bristles that count as the "final drive output", and therefore bristlebots should count as walkers under the current rules.


Having said that, I agree with Shakey that arguing the rule as it is written doesn't really help, as there will always be disagreement on any rule that is open to interpretation. Wouldn't it be better to focus our efforts on deciding what the rule should be, and then rewriting the rules to be as clear as possible?
Team Zero - AWS 58 Champion!
Zero - rambot - - Axiom - axebot - - Valkyrie - drum spinner
Blueprint - rambot - - Vampire - horizontal spinner - - Particle - ???
RBMK - quad spinner gyro walker - - Duality - dual spinner gyro walker
User avatar
DieGracefullyRobotics
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:39 am

Re: Walker rule clarification? Unusual design.

Post by DieGracefullyRobotics »

@Antroboteer As usual, I love your passion my friend, but you have to get away from this idea that your opinions are the definitive ones. I disagree with a lot of your interpretations of things, and vice-versa, which is absolutely fine but using terms like "it is plainly clear" and "there is no reason for it to change" undermines anyone who may not agree with your statements. Sometimes it's good to express a bit of magnanimity. It's something I try my best to do.

I think the problem here is that any attempt to vote on and tweak rules in the past have been completely shot down by...well, someone who has always been a bit of a stickler and seems to want all control over it. Even those conclusions reached by consensus. So the same rule debates usually just come around again every few months or so without anything happening :roll:

One of the more interesting, positive ideas to come from this debate is to give people a bigger range of creative freedom for the 4th team slot. Currently only walkers, shufflers and clusters qualify but I'd probably vote to extend that to bristlebots and vibro-bots, gyro-movers, hovercraft, jumpers and anything else which doesn't use wheels or a wheel-like method of propulsion (tracks, non-round wheels, etc). That might encourage more people to build creative designs. Though I'd say only walkers and shufflers would qualify for a weight advantage, so that would need clarifying still.
Dave
Die Gracefully Robotics - Barely Even a Proper Team.
User avatar
GeorgeR
Posts: 280
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 9:53 pm
Location: Bath, Somerset

Re: Walker rule clarification? Unusual design.

Post by GeorgeR »

DieGracefullyRobotics wrote: Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:24 am One of the more interesting, positive ideas to come from this debate is to give people a bigger range of creative freedom for the 4th team slot. Currently only walkers, shufflers and clusters qualify but I'd probably vote to extend that to bristlebots and vibro-bots, gyro-movers, hovercraft, jumpers and anything else which doesn't use wheels or a wheel-like method of propulsion (tracks, non-round wheels, etc). That might encourage more people to build creative designs. Though I'd say only walkers and shufflers would qualify for a weight advantage, so that would need clarifying still.
Yep, I would definitely second every bit of this proposal.
Team Zero - AWS 58 Champion!
Zero - rambot - - Axiom - axebot - - Valkyrie - drum spinner
Blueprint - rambot - - Vampire - horizontal spinner - - Particle - ???
RBMK - quad spinner gyro walker - - Duality - dual spinner gyro walker
User avatar
DieGracefullyRobotics
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:39 am

Re: Walker rule clarification? Unusual design.

Post by DieGracefullyRobotics »

I guess the issue with that proposal is it may increase the number of robots that are signed up for an event, something we may have to think about limiting further in the future if more people want to take part in an AWS. Ha, there's always another issue :wink:
Dave
Die Gracefully Robotics - Barely Even a Proper Team.
User avatar
Lincoln
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Feb 29, 2004 12:00 am
Location: Olney, Milton keynes

Re: Walker rule clarification? Unusual design.

Post by Lincoln »

DieGracefullyRobotics wrote: Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:24 am give people a bigger range of creative freedom for the 4th team slot. Currently only walkers, shufflers and clusters qualify but I'd probably vote to extend that to bristlebots and vibro-bots, gyro-movers, hovercraft, jumpers and anything else which doesn't use wheels or a wheel-like method of propulsion (tracks, non-round wheels, etc). That might encourage more people to build creative designs. Though I'd say only walkers and shufflers would qualify for a weight advantage, so that would need clarifying still.
personally i would agree to opening the 4th slot to creative ideas and keeping the extra weight allowance to only walkers / shufflebots. however tracks, and oval shaped wheels should not count as to this 4th slot. as you said, non wheel like propulsion, an oval wheel is still very much wheel like propulsion. and tracks are not that creative or different from anything else, both myself and Pete have built very effective tracked bots and while they are not common place, i don't think they deserve to be the 4th slot. i think if this rule change goes ahead then the need for clusters to be in the 4th slot may be removed, but thats kinda a different debate.
Team RobotMad, home of the Smart robots, and very mean pots :)
Chris and Lincoln Barnes
User avatar
GeorgeR
Posts: 280
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 9:53 pm
Location: Bath, Somerset

Re: Walker rule clarification? Unusual design.

Post by GeorgeR »

I don't think Dave was suggesting tracks etc would count as the 4th slot (and I certainly wasn't), but was making it clear they were counted as wheels.

I can't really see bristlebots or other odd bots entering in any great numbers, and even ones we do get will probably be from roboteers that would have entered a different 4th bot anyway.
Numbers could be an issue, but I suspect new people coming into antweights will drop significantly now robotwars is off air again.
Team Zero - AWS 58 Champion!
Zero - rambot - - Axiom - axebot - - Valkyrie - drum spinner
Blueprint - rambot - - Vampire - horizontal spinner - - Particle - ???
RBMK - quad spinner gyro walker - - Duality - dual spinner gyro walker
User avatar
Lincoln
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Feb 29, 2004 12:00 am
Location: Olney, Milton keynes

Re: Walker rule clarification? Unusual design.

Post by Lincoln »

ah my bad, miss read what Dave was saying
Team RobotMad, home of the Smart robots, and very mean pots :)
Chris and Lincoln Barnes
User avatar
DieGracefullyRobotics
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:39 am

Re: Walker rule clarification? Unusual design.

Post by DieGracefullyRobotics »

Yeah, sorry Lincoln, it was poorly written now I read it back. I meant oval wheels, tracks and the like should not qualify for a 4th.

The numbers thing is strange. For example, theoretically, if I was told I couldn't enter my walker in the upcoming AWS due to numbers, but then handed it to a team with only one or two robots, it would have to still be counted, albeit without me driving. So limiting numbers isn't really a solution either. Ah well, that's a different debate for a different time. We're yet to have an AWS not finish, so we're probably OK for now.
Dave
Die Gracefully Robotics - Barely Even a Proper Team.
AntRoboteer
Posts: 441
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:01 pm

Re: Walker rule clarification? Unusual design.

Post by AntRoboteer »

DieGracefullyRobotics wrote: Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:24 am @Antroboteer
Thanks Dave, not meant to be a definitive opinion; agreed I could have worded that better. Thanks for pointing that out.

Some great comments have been posted and I think it has been agreed the rule isn't clear and is open to interpretation.

Therefore, I guess what I am trying to say there is that anything open to interpretation should in my mind be interpreted in the way which is the most permissive.

For example, the 150g restriction on rollers is not open to interpretation and therefore is a hard restriction. The only way a robot can be classified as a roller is to have wheels which 'roll'.

However, the 225g weight restriction on 'walkers' with the classification not being exactly clear on what constitutes as a walker is open to interpretation. Therefore, that appears to mean anything that isn't a roller/isn't close to being a roller. The words of the rule are not clear but I believe the intention behind the rule seems clear (to open up the walker slot to robots with alternative forms of motion which are definitely not close to being wheels).
User avatar
GeorgeR
Posts: 280
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 9:53 pm
Location: Bath, Somerset

Re: Walker rule clarification? Unusual design.

Post by GeorgeR »

Yep, I agree with that. While in the end it is down to the individual EO to decide on interpretations of the rules I would certainly advocate a permissive approach, rather than banning anything marginal.

The rules can be updated and clarified later, with the added advantage that those making the rules will be better informed, having seen an example of the technology they are ruling on in action.
Team Zero - AWS 58 Champion!
Zero - rambot - - Axiom - axebot - - Valkyrie - drum spinner
Blueprint - rambot - - Vampire - horizontal spinner - - Particle - ???
RBMK - quad spinner gyro walker - - Duality - dual spinner gyro walker
Post Reply