A-level designs-added CAD drawings

[paul]

i dunno, its probably a lonway off but if you did two? probably not but just a thought.

i like design 3 alot but changing weapons could be iratating.

i also like design 3 withs its basic shape, invertable, but it maybe fairly boring...

just my thoughts.

[Adam Hargreaves]

Think I'll change the subject slightly, and narrow it down. Designs 1 and 3 seem to be most popular, and tbh, with adaptations, 3 could be turned into 1... So basically only choose 3 or 1 if ur voting after reading this...

@ Bouncy-bot. Think Tornado... they managed it. Mite not be as much scope for weapons as design 3, but i reckon I could do a disc module, and maybe a lifter...

[Adam Hargreaves]

see first post. need comments again, please

[BeligerAnt]

Adam, I would question whether some of the designs have enough usable space for control electronics, sensors etc, etc?

I see there is a space below the drive servos. I assume that is for the battery pack, as it's just the right size for 4 x 2/3AAA's (I know, because it's how RONNY and RampAnt were designed!)

The second design seems to allow virtually no space other than on top of the servos. Whilst it may be possible to build a small controller to fit there, it would almost certainly require small surface-mount components. There also doesn't seem to be much room for any sensors?

The other designs seem to have more internal space, but it doesn't look like the last design has much usable space?

Do you have any estimates of the size of the control board(s)? And the sensors? If you are using a commercial board (e.g. Basic Stamp) you are very much stuck with what you get. If you are designing your own board, you have more flexibility, but you still need to have some idea of the feasible overall size. A board that is 50% covered in components is considered quite dense (unless you go to very specialised multi-layer PCBs like PC motherboards). Also don't forget the height of components and the mating halves of connectors!

You might also need to consider cable routing and assembly issues, like space to mate/unmate connectors.

Hope this helps...

[Adam Hargreaves]

design 2 has been rejected for the reasons of getting stuff in...

design 1+3 are essentially the same thing, only without and with the disc module respectively, and I've put battery pack in, so I know there's room for it. PCBs: I'm using a PICAxe 28 pin project board, and making what othre boards I need, which can be stacked on top of servos... It's gonna be tight, but there is enough room

[Remote-Controlled Dave]

I think my level of expertise has been outdone to give any liable comment. I would say though that its an ambitious project, but you knew that when you took it on. I suggest going for the simplest of the CAD desgins to create, simply to lower the work rate on yourself. Less your either so passionate about the project you will work yourself silly on it, or some kind of sadist...

[Rhys]

I'd say go for the one with the lowest wedge. This would make it more difficult to fight against, therefore better to practise against. So working in that logic, I'd go for 2 or 5.

As for the spinner, the idea that anyone would put ther shiny new robot up against a spinner, just for practise, before any event seems a bit silly.

[Flippt]

One thing I had in mind was that maybe you really dont need to have it as a traningbot for your own. You could order a kit and make your own design! Then we could have a Atomonus antweight series (during ordinary AWS).
Just a little silly thought of me....

[Adam Hargreaves]

Thanks Joacim-I was considering that idea (and might be putting it into practice for Josh and anyone else who decides they want one)

Duff-the disc is an optional weapon module, which can be bolted on as and when someone wants, it's not a permanent fixture...

[Remote-Controlled Dave]

As for the spinner, the idea that anyone would put ther shiny new robot up against a spinner, just for practise, before any event seems a bit silly.

I would.....