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 »

Yeah that kind of describes it Lincoln, although in the motion I envisage the motor torque and gyro forces work together to lift and turn the bot in one motion. To be honest I don't know why I asked this now, I've still got to fix my current bots, build my conventional cam driven walker, and maybe make a beetleweight before I get on to weird and wonderful stuff like a gyro walker.


As for bristlebots, maybe they should be defined as neither roller or walker, but as a separate category of "bristlebot". Then we can move on to the important task of arguing about whether they can count for the 4th spot, or if they get a weight bonus!
For what it's worth, I think it depends on the purpose of the rules. I was under the impression that the 4th spot rule was to encourage different/unusual designs, in which case I say bristlebots are in.
There seems to be different views on the purpose of the weight allowance. Is it a reward for building a complex design? Is it to allow for the increased weight of the walking mech? Or is it to make the otherwise uncompetitive design viable? If it's the latter then bristlebots get the weight, but if it's either of the former then they don't.
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 »

Thanks Shakey and Lincoln!

As I said before, the rule was originally implemented to reward the complex task of building a walker, not to just generally reward any creativity. Creativity and the walker rules are entirely separate issues and don't really involve each other.

Don't get me wrong, I think rewarding creativity is hugely important and sorely lacking currently. I have tried in the past to come up with things that do reward creativity but they have been largely unsuccessful. It's just not an issue connected to the 4th slot ruling as it currently stands.

Regardless, your concept shouldn't meet any opposition if you ever decide to build it, George. I guess that's the key thing, ha.
Dave
Die Gracefully Robotics - Barely Even a Proper Team.
User avatar
peterwaller
Posts: 3213
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Aylesbury Bucks
Contact:

Re: Walker rule clarification? Unusual design.

Post by peterwaller »

I had forgotten how much more lively the discussions were with you on here Dave.
I am still not convinced though that a bristle bot does not meet the rule.
I am not saying it deserves to get the the extra weight but it is the bristles that convert the vibration into linear motion and there is nothing in the rules to say the final drive output has to move. :wink:
AntRoboteer
Posts: 441
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:01 pm

Re: Walker rule clarification? Unusual design.

Post by AntRoboteer »

Lincoln wrote: Thu Jun 07, 2018 9:26 pm it simply should not get the extra wight because a bristle bot mechanism would require less wight than just having wheels. even with a 2 sided system to have control, a tiny offset wight on a small fast motor and a tooth brush head seems like less wight and less effort than putting wheels on the end of heavy metal gear-motors. whereas my walking mechanism is about 10 grams per motor heaver than using wheels.
Firstly, moving 250g or even 150g around on bristles using vibration motors is not an easy thing to do; two coreless motors and tiny offset weights won't do anything for you. You'd need sizeable motors with sizeable weights to get that moving. I have tried similar experiments and needless to say I was not impressed enough with the drive to even consider entering such a machine. About 25g per motor was the figure I got to in order to move around 130g.

Secondly, your drive system Lincoln is more than capable of shoving machines around (very impressive given the size and weight); a bristlebot of any size is generally labouring moving its own weight, let alone pushing other machines around so a comparison there is not quite right and definitely cannot be used to deny bristlebots the extra weight allowance just because it appears that the mechanism could be lighter.

It is plainly clear that a bristlebot would completely qualify for walker allowance under the current ruleset as detailed in my previous post (final output = contact surface) and there is no reason for that to change; the engineering challenge is more than enough to contend with.
User avatar
Shakey
Posts: 1119
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:38 pm
Location: Reading

Re: Walker rule clarification? Unusual design.

Post by Shakey »

AntRoboteer wrote: Fri Jun 08, 2018 7:02 pm It is plainly clear that a bristlebot would completely qualify for walker allowance under the current ruleset as detailed in my previous post (final output = contact surface) and there is no reason for that to change; the engineering challenge is more than enough to contend with.
The issue is that it is not plainly clear hence why the debate exists. It's not something that could ever by objectively argued by the word to a conclusion as there is still interpretation. For instance I don't even agree with your interpretation of the final output equals contact surface.

If going purely by word of the interpretation that walkers are defined by their contact surface not rotating through more than 180 degrees the following are also walkers: Drones (The landing gear), hovercraft (The skirt).

Now clearly a drone is not. This is the issue we have with many rules debates is that a conclusion won't be reached arguing by the word as it is still open to too much interpretation but instead community consensus needs to be reached on the spirit of the rule and then the rule rewritten to clarify.

Not that any of the rules changes get recorded anyway.
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!
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
Post Reply