A-level designs-added CAD drawings

All things antweight

Moderators: BeligerAnt, petec, administrator

Which design would you choose?

Design 1
3
19%
Design 2
5
31%
Design 3
7
44%
Design 4
1
6%
 
Total votes: 16

Adam Hargreaves
Posts: 223
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 9:25 am
Location: Loughborough
Contact:

A-level designs-added CAD drawings

Post by Adam Hargreaves »

Replaced my hand-drawn things with CAD ones. Can I have your opinions please?
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

Just a point-the top one, the different coloured armour indicates where the armour will be removed to create the place for the weapon module.
Last edited by Adam Hargreaves on Sun Nov 13, 2005 9:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Team 'In Theory'
EpicentrE
Posts: 831
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Coventry
Contact:

Post by EpicentrE »

I went for design 3, I always liked the idea of interchangeable weapons on a training bot such as this, and the chassis it self is a standard sort of shape which would be good for general driving practice.
Scott Fyfe-Jamieson, Captain of Epic Robotics. Champion of AWS38/41/42.
http://www.epicrobotics.co.uk
Andrew_Hibberd
Posts: 1134
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2004 12:00 am
Location: London
Contact:

Post by Andrew_Hibberd »

I am more in favour of a wedge(design 3), as a basic shape the tatics gained will work vs all oponants.
TEAM GEEK!
User avatar
BeligerAnt
Posts: 1872
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Brighton
Contact:

Post by BeligerAnt »

I think the design has to be invertible, I don't think self-righting is really an option for an autonomous robot. So that discounts 4 and 5.
I like the idea of interchangeable weapons, but I don't think they would fit in the budget, unless they were optional extras.
The big wheels of design 2 would make the control software difficult. RampAnt has big wheels and it is difficult to steer because it turns so fast. The wedge shape looks good though.

I chose design 1. It is invertible, it has a good scoop front (quite difficult to attack), 4WD should make it quite hard to push around. The only downside I can think of is that very low robots are sometimes difficult/impossible to attack, depending on the design of your robot, so it may not suit all people.

Only my opinions, there are no right or wrong answers at this stage!
Gary, Team BeligerAnt
Adam Hargreaves
Posts: 223
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 9:25 am
Location: Loughborough
Contact:

Post by Adam Hargreaves »

thanks. Just noticed I forgot to add an option 5 to the poll, doh!! if anyone wants option 5, just stick it in the thread, and I'll sort it out later...
Team 'In Theory'
starbucks
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:01 am
Location: Newent, Gloucestershire!
Contact:

Post by starbucks »

I think design four is the slickest. It looks really cool and is a bit like Dominator 2.
(*)Our new (well old) forum!

http://compsandcons.jconserv.net
Flippt
Posts: 568
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by Flippt »

Are we voting for the coolest design or the best functional design to help other builder to get good drivning skill?
Image
Swedish style!
Fight Robots, Not Humans!
Remote-Controlled Dave
Posts: 3716
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Antrim, Northern Ireland
Contact:

Post by Remote-Controlled Dave »

3 for me Ad. Not too easy or too difficult to beat, and interchangable weapons allow further change. Good shape!
Die Gracefully Robotics
Winner - AWS 39
User avatar
Bouncy_Bot
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 8:42 am
Location: In your left ear.....
Contact:

Post by Bouncy_Bot »

1 i think,but it would be hard to have inter changable weapons :-?
Nick, Ambitious Ants

"All you have to do, is go up to somebody's house, ring the bell, and say, 'Trick or Treat!' "
"Are you sure it's legal?"
"Of course it's legal."
"I wouldn't want to be accused of taking part in a rumble."
josh
Posts: 1115
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 6:56 pm
Location: Uxbridge, London
Contact:

Post by josh »

definatly 1 its the coolest would be good if it was quite fast to practise with and if they were like that i would def buy 1
Post Reply