Revision of Nanoweight Cube Size

If Fleaweights are just too big...

Moderators: BeligerAnt, petec, administrator

Rapidrory
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2013 9:54 pm

Revision of Nanoweight Cube Size

Post by Rapidrory »

Having talked to various of the Nanoweight builders, nearly everyone is finding the 50mm cube size is just a bit too restrictive to do properly creative designs with. As I see it, the weight limit should be the main limiting factor in a weight class, and the size limit should be there more just to stop the size of robots getting out of hand. However it can help to drive creativity when the limit is right, so some size limit may be good. I'm more opening this thread just to get opinions on the matter, and if there is a general agreement then we can adjust the size accordingly. Being a relatively new weight class it shouldn't be too much of an upset to change it at this point.

I personally think that a small increase to a 60mm cube would be enough to allow a lot more creativity whilst still retaining a significantly smaller cube size than the Fleas. Other suggestions have been to either increase it to the same 3 inch cube as the flea weights, or to remove it all together and just rely on the 25g weight limit to keep the size down. Other suggestions are of course welcome.
Rory Mangles - Team Nuts

Robots: Nuts 2 and many more...

NanoTwo Motor Controllers: https://nutsandbots.co.uk/product/nanotwodualesc

User avatar
Shakey
Posts: 1113
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:38 pm
Location: Reading

Re: Revision of Nanoweight Cube Size

Post by Shakey »

I'm in favour of a 3" build cube (75mm because metric). It allows creative bots and interesting designs without someone strapping motors to a skewer and avoiding the pits.

As said I don't feel a 50mm cube adds anything to the challenge of the weightclass only making it more frustrating and limiting.
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: Revision of Nanoweight Cube Size

Post by Rapidrory »

If it was to go to flea weight size, would likely leave it as 3" so we wouldn't need 2 cubes of ever so slightly different sizes for the two weight classes..
Rory Mangles - Team Nuts

Robots: Nuts 2 and many more...

NanoTwo Motor Controllers: https://nutsandbots.co.uk/product/nanotwodualesc

User avatar
Shakey
Posts: 1113
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:38 pm
Location: Reading

Re: Revision of Nanoweight Cube Size

Post by Shakey »

I know that would be the logical solution. I just dislike the annoying numbers :P
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
peterwaller
Posts: 3193
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Aylesbury Bucks
Contact:

Re: Revision of Nanoweight Cube Size

Post by peterwaller »

Personally I think the 50mm is a bit too tight just because of the length needed for two gearmotors end to end plus wheels.
But I think it should be less than the Fleas so I would go for the 60mm Rory suggested.

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

Re: Revision of Nanoweight Cube Size

Post by joey_picus »

I'm not sure, personally I would vote to retain the current cube size (despite struggling with it myself!); the 'gearmotors end to end plus wheels' problem also limits fleaweights. If a change had to be had, I don't really want them to be the same size as fleaweights because then they lose their distinctiveness...

(on the metric/imperial issue; I actually like the imperial cube sizes rather a lot because - as someone who has no engineering background and only really self-taught skill - they let me design and build robots to 100mm and not have to worry about a hole drilled in the wrong place or a loose bracket or some flex in the material making me illegal. I think it would be wrong to essentially punish people for not being precision engineers, especially with 3" and 4" materials being commonly available!)
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"

User avatar
Shakey
Posts: 1113
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:38 pm
Location: Reading

Re: Revision of Nanoweight Cube Size

Post by Shakey »

The idea of the current cube size isn't to make it easier as as been proven it can be done without too much effort. But to allow for more diverse designs. There is very little the 50mm actually allows. I would like to hear Will weigh in on this as he has probably built the most nanos!

I'd be happy with 60mm, not a dramatic increase but enough that some more interesting designs can be had.
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!

AntRoboteer
Posts: 440
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:01 pm

Re: Revision of Nanoweight Cube Size

Post by AntRoboteer »

A 60mm cube would definitely get me more interested! In my early attempts, nothing at all would fit in the tiny little 50mm cube; an increase would at least allow for some slightly larger components to make the nanos easier to build and therefore more available to all.

Nixon
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2015 5:24 pm

Re: Revision of Nanoweight Cube Size

Post by Nixon »

I'd build one if the size allowance was bigger. Kinda limits creativity trying to cram in in such a small volume.

Remote-Controlled Dave
Posts: 3716
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Antrim, Northern Ireland
Contact:

Re: Revision of Nanoweight Cube Size

Post by Remote-Controlled Dave »

I'd be more interested if it was a bigger cube. Even Haz is slightly too big technically for the current. I'd keep the weight exactly the same but just use a 3" cube like fleas. Easier on event organisers!
Die Gracefully Robotics
Winner - AWS 39

Post Reply