Metrication of the rules

A discussion forum for proposed changes to the AWS rules

Moderators: petec, administrator, BeligerAnt

Locked
User avatar
BeligerAnt
Posts: 2461
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Brighton
Contact:

Metrication of the rules

Post by BeligerAnt » Fri Nov 18, 2011 10:36 pm

2a) Weight limits: robots must weigh less than the following:
Fleaweight: Roller 75g, Walker/Shufflebot 113g
Antweight: Roller 150g, Walker/Shufflebot 225g

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)

2g) Any system involving the use of pressurised gas or liquid is limited to 100 p.s.i. (7 Bar).

2i) Weapons are not permitted to deliberately detach completely from the robot, but may be partially separated as long as it is connected by a tether of no more than 3 feet (914mm). The tether may not be used as an entanglement weapon.

3b) The arena will be a raised platform with an area of at least 30 inches (762mm) square.
Craig_Anto3 wrote:just a little thing but it a huge bug bare of mine, can we please move the rules over to metric only and be rid of the imperial system used in our rules
BeligerAnt wrote:This is difficult. Going to hard metric rules (i.e. 100mm cube) is very hard on current robots which have been designed to a 4" cube and suddenly become illegal. Going to soft metric rules (i.e. 101.6mm cube) seems pointless, and just very difficult to explain to newcomers. The rules already give the dimensions in imperial and metric units so I don't really see a problem. Besides we're British and therefore entitled to mix imperial and metric as we see fit! :wink:
Simon Windisch wrote:On the point of metrication, we could agree to change the cube from 101.6mm squared to 100mm squared from some future date (like Jan 1st 2015) giving people plenty of time to rebuild, or just naturally evolve to the slightly smaller size.

User avatar
joey_picus
Posts: 1137
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:51 pm
Location: Lancaster, Lancashire
Contact:

Re: Metrication of the rules

Post by joey_picus » Fri Nov 18, 2011 11:19 pm

I'm not an engineer, which may contribute to my thoughts here :) but personally I like the 4" cube - I always, where possible, build to 100mm, but the extra 1.6mm allows for my mistakes and errors in calculation and the fact I don't have access to anything that could be described as a precise engineering instrument. I also find it hard to see how you could gain any advantage from the extra space of an imperial cube vs. a metric cube (again, that may be my lack of nous XD)
Joey McConnell-Farber - Team Picus Telerobotics - http://picus.org.uk/ - @joey_picus
"These dreams go on when I close my eyes...every second of the night, I live another life"

haz
Posts: 1838
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 11:20 am
Location: Underwater Lair
Contact:

Re: Metrication of the rules

Post by haz » Sat Nov 19, 2011 9:18 am

get rid of the stupid cube rule, problem solved :P
seriously, i think we were fine as we were, 4" leaves a little room for error i make all my bots slightly smaller anyway

User avatar
Simon Windisch
Posts: 2194
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Reading
Contact:

Re: Metrication of the rules

Post by Simon Windisch » Sat Nov 19, 2011 9:27 am

Also, as Gary has implied, the metrification of the rules should also logically cover arena size and pressure limits.

It seems as if the majority want to stay as we are.

User avatar
Craig_Anto3
Posts: 1400
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: Metrication of the rules

Post by Craig_Anto3 » Sun Nov 20, 2011 12:36 pm

I'm not suggesting a change to the rules just a metrication, it could be phased in over the next few AWS until we dont use imperial systems.
As an engineer I have to work to EU standards and it is illegal to produce my work to imperial, Simon mentions that we Brits use both we'll we dont, not in engineering, unless you're working with american standard its all metric and even the American customers we supply too are being made to use metric systems.

Like I said its a bug bare of mine, having to work to tight EU standards and then seeing imperial makes me frustrated, but I can live with it. I just think that over the next few years as some of our younger builders go to college and university they will increasingly find that no part of the industry uses imperial anymore.

We forget sometimes that we are not just a robot combat association we are a gateway to engineering, its through robot combat I became an engineer, did an apprenticeship, HNC, degrees and masters. We need to be more responsible for the actions that we make, the young builders learn a lot from build ants, if they're going to learn lets give them a better footing to do so.
Image

User avatar
BeligerAnt
Posts: 2461
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Brighton
Contact:

Re: Metrication of the rules

Post by BeligerAnt » Sun Nov 20, 2011 6:32 pm

Craig, by suggesting hard metric dimensions you *are* suggesting a change to the rules, by reducing the size of the cube by just under 1.6%

Your arguments about engineering standards are completely irrelevant. The rules state all dimensions in imperial and metric units. You can design in metric units if you wish, to a 101.6mm limit. I design all my robots in millimetres - as I'm sure do many others - to a 100mm nominal limit to allow 1.6% error, which I think is pretty reasonable for my kitchen-table engineering!

Interestingly, none of our European friends seem to have ever had a problem building robots to fit in the cube!

Moreover, the UK education curriculum still demands that children are taught imperial and metric units and how to convert between them. In fact such a question was in last year's GCSE maths paper.
Kids moving from school to engineering are likely to suffer a far larger shock when they find that centimetres are not used by anyone!

The 4" rule is historic. We have already added the metric equivalents of all dimensions into the rules. We don;t need to remove the imperial dimensions nor do we need to change the size of the cube to make it hard metric.

The 4" cube is one of the original antweight rules (the weight limit was originally 100g), and for this reason I think we should keep it as it is. It does no harm, the metric equivalent is clearly stated, and by good fortune it allows builders to choose to design to 100mm and have a little margin for error.
Gary, Team BeligerAnt

User avatar
Craig_Anto3
Posts: 1400
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: Metrication of the rules

Post by Craig_Anto3 » Sun Nov 20, 2011 6:50 pm

getting something straight I have never said anything about going to hard metric rules, maybe get that right before you make such a wild accusation.
if my opinion is irrelevant then fine I shall not give it anymore
Image

User avatar
Simon Windisch
Posts: 2194
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Reading
Contact:

Re: Metrication of the rules

Post by Simon Windisch » Sun Nov 20, 2011 8:08 pm

Ah, so you want to move from
Antweight: four inches (101.6mm)
to
Antweight: 101.6mm

User avatar
BeligerAnt
Posts: 2461
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Brighton
Contact:

Re: Metrication of the rules

Post by BeligerAnt » Sun Nov 20, 2011 8:54 pm

Craig_Anto3 wrote:Yes Simon but as everyone is firmly used to the 4inch by 4inch by 4 inch cube, I would like to see us make the metric the priority and put the imperial in brackets before eventually removing it
(Craig's post moved to this thread http://robotwars101.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=1811 )
razerdave wrote:I would rather the rules state all measurements in Metric, and then bracketed in imperial.
Please keep to one subject per thread!
I have moved the cube/no cube discussion to a new thread here http://robotwars101.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=1811
Gary, Team BeligerAnt

User avatar
BeligerAnt
Posts: 2461
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Brighton
Contact:

Re: Metrication of the rules

Post by BeligerAnt » Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:27 pm

Craig_Anto3 wrote:... it could be phased in over the next few AWS ...
This is why I interpreted your intention as hard metric sizes. We already have metric sizes in the rules so there is nothing to phase in. :-?

I really can't see any point in changing from 4" (101.6mm) to 101.6mm (4") or dropping the 4"
Gary, Team BeligerAnt

User avatar
Simon Windisch
Posts: 2194
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Reading
Contact:

Re: Metrication of the rules

Post by Simon Windisch » Mon Nov 21, 2011 12:59 am

As it doesn't really make a difference (except to those who are interested in this one) Why don't we have a vote on this thread. I'm not going to vote here, because I have no preference, but shall we say that the voting choices are (and this is an example - the other dimensions would follow on from this vote)

1. Antweight: four inches (101.6mm)

2. Antweight: 101.6mm (four inches)

3. Antweight: 101.6mm

User avatar
petec
Posts: 1036
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Burgess Hill, West Sussex
Contact:

Re: Metrication of the rules

Post by petec » Mon Nov 21, 2011 8:57 pm

Given that no one has ever made a cube within even 0.5mm accuracy to date, this whole subject is pointless. We give the measurements in both already - there is actually no benefit in changing these details because everyone can understand them as they are. :D
------------
RobotWars101.org
RobotWars101.co.uk
Antweights.com
Antweights.co.uk
AntweightWorldSeries.com

Locked