Rule 2b: Robot size limits

A discussion forum for proposed changes to the AWS rules

Moderators: administrator, BeligerAnt, petec

anttazz
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 3:07 pm
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

Rule 2b: Robot size limits

Post by anttazz » Sun Nov 20, 2011 8:34 pm

Not being an antweight builder it probably doesn't matter so much what I think. I was tempted to build an ant for the event that I attended (AWS 35 or something maybe?) but this idea of the 4" cube is what put me off. Seems to me to just really limit the levels of creativity you're able to have in what is probably the easiest weight class to be creative in otherwise, primarily because the components are relatively cheap. If you look at the FW's, something like Seraphim is huge compared to most others but it adds something different to each competition it enters, its probably the first robot most people notice when they look into the arena.

I would say, if someone wants to build an antweight that is 30cm's long, let them, if they even manage it it'll be rubbish. At least it'll be something a bit different though and from what I saw at the event I attended it looked like there was decent amounts of diversity as it was, but I think this would add more.

I would probably be more tempted to get involved more if that was the case, but from what i've read since joining this forum it looks like there'll soon be more rules for antweights than there is for Heavyweights :-?

Gizz
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 8:53 pm
Location: Malmo, Sweden

Re: Metrication of the rules

Post by Gizz » Sun Nov 20, 2011 8:40 pm

I found the cube was the hardest factor to actually build around but then again it's always been there and i just have to try and make things more compact.
Altho would be awesome with free hands on the size :P
Team DD

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 8:47 pm

the original rules came from the sumo catagory, where they use size limits, the original limit was 4inch cube with 100g which is a sumo regulation, originally we found it too hard to build to 100g so the limit was raised to 150g,
Its also why we fight on 30 inch arenas, and thats the main reason we have to use a size limit, without a size limit you could build a 30 inch robot which wouldn't let you opponent move so you would always win, you can build bigger robots than the 4 inch cube bu they have to expand.
Image

razerdave
Posts: 1539
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 9:40 pm
Location: Carterton, Oxfordshire
Contact:

Re: Metrication of the rules

Post by razerdave » Sun Nov 20, 2011 8:50 pm

It may be an original rule, but I'm with Gizz and Tony on this: the cube rule should go. Its been commented on by other people that it is very limiting to what you can build. It would also bring us into line with the americans and autralians not to have it (they get theirs into 150g without a size limit).

But if we keep it (as I'm sure we will), I would rather the rules state all measurements in Metric, and then bracketed in imperial.

anttazz
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 3:07 pm
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

Re: Metrication of the rules

Post by anttazz » Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:04 pm

To add to Dave's point there, I wasn't just giving my own opinion either there, I was more conveying with what i've heard from people regarding the 4" size limit.

Saying that though, i've noticed that its not the worst thing going on at the minute. Some of you guys seems to be getting a bit heated with each other over a topic which essentially, I think i'm right in saying, means "keeping everything the same" and moving the brackets 3 characters along on a long list of rules? I mean, come on guys behave yourselves...

I imagine that is why a number people don't bring their points up when it comes to these discussions and its left to be reported by the few who do. Personally if I hadn't met you guys and spoken to you a few times before I'd be a bit apprehensive about commenting on rule changes somewhere along the lines of "If a group of friends get this heated about whether inches or centimetres should be in brackets, what will they do to me!"

Hope that doesn't offend anyone as it wasn't meant to, just giving the opinion of an outside/insider

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

Re: Rule 2b: Robot size limits

Post by joey_picus » Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:18 pm

Personally I think the cube rule should stay, I think it encourages rather than limits creativity and personally I would have trouble focusing my designs without a benchmark size to go for 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"

User avatar
bitternboy
Posts: 759
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 7:36 pm
Location: Sheffield

Re: Rule 2b: Robot size limits

Post by bitternboy » Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:20 pm

Personally I think the cube rule should stay
I agree. The limit has never "got in the way" and any aspects that caused the robot to exceed the limit I could do without. And besides, the better you get at building you encounter the problems of being undersized and underweight.
Jonathan Atkinson
Before you criticize another person, first walk a mile in their shoes. Then, when you critisize them, you'll be a mile away and have their shoes.

anttazz
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 3:07 pm
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

Re: Rule 2b: Robot size limits

Post by anttazz » Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:35 pm

I wouldn't say its bad design to try to use, and it wouldn't force you to build something that exceeds the cubes size, if thats the size you want to go for then thats fine.

Also, I wouldn't say that larger robots are a product of bad design. A change in the size and not weight would presumably give you the option of having longer levers for flippers, spinners, thwackbots etc but would cost you in a sense that as size increases weight would also inevitably increase and need better engineering and planning to combat that.

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

Re: Rule 2b: Robot size limits

Post by Simon Windisch » Mon Nov 21, 2011 12:54 am

Well I just like the four inch rule, I suppose a large robot being "ditch proof" is also a concern. I never had a problem with building to the cube, part of engineering is designing within your limits.

Andrew_Hibberd
Posts: 1295
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2004 12:00 am
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Rule 2b: Robot size limits

Post by Andrew_Hibberd » Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:37 am

Personally my opinion of the cube actually creates more interesting robots. We have had robots before that have pushed the expanding rule into something silly. Looking at the american ants there are a lot of huge wedges and over sized spinners, we would have to re-consider the arena wall thickness with bigger spinners. However it would also be easier to make a lot of designs without the size rule.
TEAM GEEK!

Locked