Revision of Nanoweight Cube Size

If Fleaweights are just too big...

Moderators: BeligerAnt, petec, administrator

User avatar
teamocean
Posts: 515
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: Reading
Contact:

Re: Revision of Nanoweight Cube Size

Post by teamocean »

When I first saw this my initial view was to keep the limit the same but having thought about it I would be in favour of the 60mm cube as it still limits the size but allows for more flexibility. The 3 inch cube seems a little too big for my liking
Will Thomas
Team Shock
www.shockbots.co.uk

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

Re: Revision of Nanoweight Cube Size

Post by Rapidrory »

Yeah, going to 60mm may not sound like much, but it should give plenty of room for walking mechanisms and the custom nano drive setups (which at the moment need about 1mm wide wheels to fit). We don't necessarily want to remove the challenge of the cube altogether, just make it less of a frustrating limitation and more of a technically creative one. Also, their tininess is what makes them hilarious; we don't want to loose that aspect :L

Since most of the major Nano builders have now voiced their opinions, and the general consensus has been for an increase to 60mm, shall we try upping the limit to 60mm and seeing how it changes things? If need be we can revisit this again if there is major issues, but I feel that it is probably the right solution..
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 60mm cube. We can see how it goes at AWS48 and keep/revert/change the rule depending on how that goes.
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 »

Yeah, that sounds like a plan. Now we just need people to build some new Nanos :L
Rory Mangles - Team Nuts

Robots: Nuts 2 and many more...

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

User avatar
teamocean
Posts: 515
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: Reading
Contact:

Re: Revision of Nanoweight Cube Size

Post by teamocean »

Image

've already started :)
Will Thomas
Team Shock
www.shockbots.co.uk

User avatar
limpet
Posts: 376
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: Revision of Nanoweight Cube Size

Post by limpet »

So is it 60mm officially then?
–-----------------------------

For AntFreeze
https://www.facebook.com/AntFreeze/

For my robots etc.
https://www.facebook.com/13Robotics
Ants, Fleas, Beetles, Feathers & Heavies

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

Re: Revision of Nanoweight Cube Size

Post by Shakey »

Now I know Nanos aren't much of a thing still and we're still thinking of ways of encouraging them.

I still have plans to build a nano arena, new job and moving put a temporary hold on that though. Another point of discussion between myself and Rory was to simply totally eliminate the size limit, the thinking behind it is that in all honestly the weight alone is limiting enough and we want to encourage more nanos to be built. It also provides a different edge to the class compared to other insect classes. The weight being restrictive enough to stop it being too out of hand in practice.

The move to 60mm did help quite a few more ants appear and I think relaxing this rule altogether plus a dedicated arena could properly help them to find their feet.

Thoughts?
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
DieGracefullyRobotics
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:39 am

Re: Revision of Nanoweight Cube Size

Post by DieGracefullyRobotics »

I remember putting forward the idea before that nanos and fleas should both simply follow the same rules as ants and we just use the 4" cube for all, with the weight being the main restriction, but it wasn't met with much enthusiasm at the time.
I'd be all for it personally. It would mean event organisers would only need one cube too. But I've never been able to get the hang of nanos anyway.
Dave
Die Gracefully Robotics - Barely Even a Proper Team.

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

Re: Revision of Nanoweight Cube Size

Post by AntRoboteer »

Sounds interesting.

I definitely think a new dedicated nano arena would help things along. The current arena really is very large even for ants but the issue tends to be the nanos often have no chance of catching up to one another.

If you are going to lift the size restriction, you have to consider that in theory a nano Robox could come into existence which is near 12 inches by 12 inches (roughly the size of the current full size Robox) and still qualify within the rules.

Currently, the main arena is large enough for Robox to move around in (just :D ) but a smaller, dedicated nano arena would limit possibilities of anything like that.

Of course, this is a bit of an edge case, but it's not a stretch to say that it would be possible and would have damaging effects on competition in general if the arena is too small. There would be no restriction on current size nanoweights with tons of acetate all around them filling up the 4 inch cube either which would have a similar effect. Hence, worst case is what you would have to plan for in terms of arena size and the ideal candidate for that right now would be Pete's current arena.

So, what it comes down to is that a new smaller arena and a cube size change would not go hand in hand.

Personally, the size restriction has never been an issue at all for me or nano builders in general and the arena size has proved to be problematic in some cases (the 7 minute long nano fight at Ant Freeze is an example, bearing in mind that the Ant Freeze arena is actually smaller than Pete's arena). The 60mm cube really helped, but we see diminishing returns as the cube size increases as nanoweight components must be tiny anyway. I would propose keeping the size restriction the same.

However, a new arena would add a new dynamic to the nanos and I believe having the nanoweights as a dedicated competition in a separate arena would make the class infinitely more appealing.

On a side note, the fleaweight cube restriction is an issue and prevents fleaweights being built for sure. This is because, unlike the nanos, fleaweight components are often antweight components, just with thinner armour used for the chassis or lack of moving weapon. I would propose increasing the fleaweight cube size to 4 inches as there are no arena change concerns with fleaweights and it's about time they became more accessible to all.

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

Re: Revision of Nanoweight Cube Size

Post by Shakey »

You make a good point about something like a nanoweight Roblox. At the same time though the size restrictions ARE something I hear a lot of as a barrier to nanos on top of the weight limit. While nanos are meant to be a challenge at the moment it feels the size limit is serving to pigeonhole designs and enforcing too oppressive of a restriction, especially when active weapons are trying to be incorporated in the robots. I'm still of the mind that there should be an increase though maybe not a totally unrestricted. My concern is aiming to make the class actually accessible so we can start encouraging builders into it. The aim being to be able to offer some more space for innovating designs and trying different challenging things which was one of the reasons we drove the class into existence.

"Of course, this is a bit of an edge case, but it's not a stretch to say that it would be possible and would have damaging effects on competition in general if the arena is too small" I more see the arena size as one of the design restrictions in the same way robots aren't too fast as there's only so much arena to run in. I don't consider it something damaging to the competition if it's only affecting a single competitor that is quite literally too big to move in the arena. :P

One of the reasons we moved to 60mm initially was to allow certain components to be accommodated without forcing designs, now there was good success with this but I feel there's still some ways to go.

I know I intend to ensure that my arena is capable of slightly larger nanos than currently to allow us to at least experiment with the rules to find the effect. Often I think the sport, especially a fledgling weight class like nanos, gets too bogged down in debates and 'every scenario' rules preventing some of the actual fun of it all coming through. I do have every intention of allowing slightly larger nanos into my arena even if just to simply see the results rather than lock the class into generic designs until it is too big of a class to change it down the line.

It was at the end of the day an arbitrarily decided limit post a few beers to impose and I don't think we should stick with it simply because it was the first number to appear.

Also please take the flea size debate to a new thread, I actually agree with it but don't want to have 2 things being discussed in this one.
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!

Post Reply