Wheelless Robot?

[jminer19363]

So my team is debating on whether to have wheels or not. In the rules, it says, "The Robot must include all of the basic systems required to be an active participant in the game - power, communications, control, mobility, and actuation."

Does climbing count as mobility or would the lack of wheels be illegal?

[Littleboy]

That would be legal.
There was a question in the QA about it.
R01
Q.Do we need a drive-train?
A.There are no Rules that require a drive base.

[sebflippers]

It should be fine, but it doesn't sound like a very good idea.

[nighterfighter]

Sure, it might be legal as long as your bumpers are in the legal bumper zone.

And make sure that the base of your wheelless robot isn't metal, metal touching carpet isn't allowed.

But a driveless robot won't do very well. An alliance won't want that, even if you could just drive around you become a defense robot.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by nighterfighter

Sure, it might be legal as long as your bumpers are in the legal bumper zone.

And make sure that the base of your wheelless robot isn't metal, metal touching carpet isn't allowed.

But a driveless robot won't do very well. An alliance won't want that, even if you could just drive around you become a defense robot.

But then I can use my CIMs for much more important tasks!

[Elgin Clock]

If the only thing you wanted to do in a match is CLIMB, this would be a good way to save weight.

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by Elgin Clock

If the only thing you wanted to do in a match is CLIMB, this would be a good way to save weight.

This. And I think a 30-point contribution will tip the scales in the vast percentage of matches.

[jminer19363]

Originally Posted by nighterfighter

Sure, it might be legal as long as your bumpers are in the legal bumper zone.

And make sure that the base of your wheelless robot isn't metal, metal touching carpet isn't allowed.

But a driveless robot won't do very well. An alliance won't want that, even if you could just drive around you become a defense robot.

But since with autonomas, we start out next to the pyramid, we can climb and get easy 30 points with endgame, which WILL make an alliance want that.

[IndySam]

Originally Posted by nighterfighter

And make sure that the base of your wheelless robot isn't metal, metal touching carpet isn't allowed.

Can you site the rule for this?

[Steven Donow]

Originally Posted by IndySam

Can you site the rule for this?

I believe that the rule they are citing is <R06> which states...

Originally Posted by <R06>

Traction devices may not have surface features such as metal, sandpaper, hard plastic studs, cleats, or similar attachments. Traction devices include all parts of the ROBOT that are designed to transmit any propulsive and/or braking forces between the ROBOT and FIELD carpet.

Emphasis mine.

It's up to interpretation, but would a frame be considered a "traction device"?

[EricH]

More to the point, can a frame damage the carpet?

It's also not terribly difficult to put some plastic on the bottom of a metal frame using countersunk screws or appropriate adhesive.


To answer the original question: If you have designed your robot to play the game in such a way that you do not need to move, I would say that you have satisfied the rules. (I would like to note that I have seen a wheelless robot take the field before, but it's been several years and a slight rule change on the definition of robot since that happened.)

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by stevend1994

It's up to interpretation, but would a frame be considered a "traction device"?

Unless the robot's design is meant to be dragged across the carpet, then under no definition of "traction" does the frame become a traction device. However, if the frame sits there during a match, is pushed and causes the carpet to rip then I think the refs will throw a yellow card.

'No wheels' is a perfectly good way to save weight for a flier. So is the properly-dimensioned 'L' shaped robot -- no bumpers needed on half of the robot, so the weight savings is a big plus. We hadn't thought of such a base until we saw it in Q&A.

[nighterfighter]

Originally Posted by jminer19363

But since with autonomas, we start out next to the pyramid, we can climb and get easy 30 points with endgame, which WILL make an alliance want that.

Compared to another robot that can climb and can ALSO drive around, (at all), the driving robot can provide a small amount of defense and interference.

[AndyBare]

Originally Posted by JesseK

Unless the robot's design is meant to be dragged across the carpet, then under no definition of "traction" does the frame become a traction device. However, if the frame sits there during a match, is pushed and causes the carpet to rip then I think the refs will throw a yellow card.

'No wheels' is a perfectly good way to save weight for a flier. So is the properly-dimensioned 'L' shaped robot -- no bumpers needed on half of the robot, so the weight savings is a big plus. We hadn't thought of such a base until we saw it in Q&A.

You would need to cover all external corners, it would have the same amount of bumpers i believe, correct me if i am wrong, it would look like this... same amount of bumpers.

[Tao]

Originally Posted by JesseK

'No wheels' is a perfectly good way to save weight for a flier. So is the properly-dimensioned 'L' shaped robot -- no bumpers needed on half of the robot, so the weight savings is a big plus. We hadn't thought of such a base until we saw it in Q&A.

We were debating bumpers on an relatively L-shaped robot on a different thread: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=110770
Any more interpretation on the 'no bumpers needed' comment with regards to the posts on the thread?

On topic though, my team was (jokingly)thinking of making a cube that sits there and then climbs. It would be interesting, although you'd have to be able to touch your pyramid so you don't get bumped out of position without consequence.