College Survey For BattleBot

To the Moderator: If this is in the wrong location could you please move it to the correct sub forum. We are trying to get as much exposure and as many replies as possible and think that this is the correct location for this post.


This survey is for a student design team from the University of Cincinnati that is building a combat robot for the BotsIQ competition in spring of 2010. The information gathered here will be directly linked to successful selection of components in our robot. Keep in mind that this is for educational purpose and not intended to gain an advantage in any competition.

Please rank the following in order of importance on a scale of (1-5)
(1 – Least important, 5-Most important)

• Offense
• Defense
• Maneuverability and control
• Maintenance

Offensive Questions (1 – Least important, 5-Most important)

• Time weapon can be ready between uses or at start up.
• Destructive capability to opponents
• Prevention of stall or binding
• Secondary Weapon (back up weapon)

Defensive Questions (1 – Least important, 5-Most important)

• Armors ability to withstand or redirect blows
• Robot is functional even inverted (flipped upside down)
• Frames ability to absorb shock

Controls and maneuverability Questions (1 – Least important, 5-Most important)

• User interface is adjustable
• Simplistic controls
• Turning radius
• Time needed to accelerate or decelerate.
• Reliability of power supply systems.
• If one or more drive motors are disabled still has some driveability
• Consistency of power supple throughout the duration of the match
• Automatic operations that do not require input from an operator


Repairs and Maintenance Questions (1 – Least important, 5-Most important)

• Modular frame
• Modular armor
• Weapon is modular
• Easy accessibility too components
• Time taken to completely replace a component under 20 minuets

Thank you for your time.

Here's my 2 cents. I don't know how meaningful it would be to give numerical values to all the bullets you mentioned but when I look to build a new bot, the #1 thing would be reliability. If it can give/take hits and still work through several matches that's probably the most meaningful. Offense and Defense are probably equally important, you just need the right mix. Even if it's a bot that's simple as a wedge, if parts are going to come loose or stop working after a few hits from a top rank bot then it fails the reliability test. If a bot can manage to give huge hits but wear itself out in the process I feel that that is its own problem. It definitely doesn't need to give big powerful hits but be resilient and reliable. Also, maneuverability is definitely important since moving around is what keeps you in the match. a solid and reliable drive-train is definitely a must since motion from your bot is a necessity to stay on top of your matches. With maneuverability comes driving practice where you learn to be able to control your bot and move around with the given drive-train efficiently and effectively. With reliability in mind, maintenance shouldn't become too big of a deal.

The start up or spin up time of your offensive weapon would most likely depend on the size of the arena you're competing in but with sufficient gearing and the proper motor choice, you shouldn't have any trouble with spin-ups. As I mentioned previously, destructive capability is not important if that capability is slowly chewing away at your own bot as well. Giving out sufficient hits to bend frame members and immobilize the opponent is definitely sufficient compared to aiming for ceiling hits or the like. Big hits do have the advantage of "what goes up must come down" in that the landing impact damages the foe as well but i don't believe that it's something that has to be achieved when designing a bot. Prevention of a stall is pretty obviously an important aspect which can be covered by using the proper bearings and mounting as well as multiple (usually just 2) belts to run the weapon. If there is to be a secondary weapon, then a simple wedge should be fine. If by any chance your active weapon becomes immobilized then a simple and effective wedge should be able to get you pretty far assuming you have the reliable drive-train to back it up. Wasting weight on more than 1 active weapon seems pretty useless to me.

Withstanding blows is of course important but the easiest way to defend against attacks is by deflecting them which numerous people do by utilizing sloped sides on a frame or something of the like. Functional while inverted is a must although it depends on what kind of design you're going with. Usually a horizontal is just as effective upside down as it is right side up while a vertical is typically only effective while right side up. The ability to move while upside down is definitely crucial if you don't have a self-flip mechanism built in. In the case of verticals, there are several bots that are able to flip back over simply by ramming into a wall or doing something like a wheelie but those are harder to predict in my opinion. The frame's ability to absorb shock is kinda like redirecting blows i suppose.. same idea in the sense that you're trying to reduce the forces on the frame during a hit but in different methods. Some robots like to combine both the use of sloped sides as well as shock mounting such as the 120lb Professor Chaos.

Now onto controls/maneuverability. In the case of adjustable interface, all I can think of is changing dual rates on radios to change the speed at which your robot turns. As far as I know most robots use tank steering which shouldn't really have a turning radius since it should be able to turn in place. I don't think accelerating and decelerating is that much of an issue since in robots they all seem to reach top speed pretty quickly, so I think it's top speed that's more important. I believe people gauge the appropriate top speed based on how long it takes to get from side-to-side or corner-to-corner in an arena which once again depends on what venue you're competing at. Reliability of power systems once again falls under the general case of reliability which is very important. Having no power means no drive and no weapon so I think that's a given. Drivability with only one side is important because that is still movement that can keep you in the match. What's more important is learning how to drive with only one side working. I believe most people call it "crab walking" or something along those lines but typically you just go forward and then backwards really quick which should slide the side without drive using momentum and such... Consistency of power supply just depends on choosing the right capacity of the battery and making sure it's a battery that is able to source the proper amps to power everything without having a voltage sag. In this sport, the robot being autonomous is for the most part ignored and can be seen of as more of a hazard which is why the requirement of failsafes are strictly enforced especially in larger classes.

Modular frame, modular armor both seem pretty unnecessary to me. I'd just say to have multiples of each part so they can be swapped out. Trying to make the weapon modular usually requires weight to be allocated into unnecessary parts of the robot which is why I try to avoid modular weapons and just stick to one all-around reliable design. Easy accessibility is definitely important on parts since quick and simple fixes are the way to go from my experience.

All in all, Reliability Reliability Reliability... Sorry for having you read this incredibly long wall of text, but if you got something out of it then it's all good =]. (excuse bad grammar or spelling)

-Donald

we appreciate your reply. the advice is good and we will take it into account.

the reason for the survey is mostly to complete QFD requests that our college makes us do. They expect it to be in numerical analysis.

QFD aside, I'm going to have to agree with donsun here - reliability trumps all other categories. I do have a few points to add as well though:

Weapons - Really, any well-built spinning weapon can deliver roughly the same amount of damage. Additionally, some robots have been immensely successful with weapons that cause absolutely no damage (lifters, flippers and manipulators). It's more often a matter of personal choice and style, particularly how you feel comfortable driving. For example, shell spinners often use omnidirectional drives since they can cause damage by striking a robot with any part of the shell. On the other hand, robots with drums tend to have either two-wheel or four-wheel drives that allow them to very rapidly turn to face an opponent with their weapon, and give them good traction and enough torque to push other robots around the arena.

On Modularity - unless you plan on having a small robot compete in different weight classes (a 12 lber that can be up-armored to 15 lbs), do not have modular ANYTHING. However, planning ahead and making sections of your armor easy to remove isn't a bad idea, seeing as that cuts down on prep time in-between matches.

What I would suggest to you on top of the QFD is just watch a ton of youtube videos of battlebots tournaments, and come to a conclusion on what type of robot you would most like to build. There is no set rock-paper-scissors formula in combat robotics.

No offense, Jeff, but you haven't been to a competition in a while, and at least to my jaundiced (remember, I LOVED X-Contamination) eye, the sad fact is that quality spinning weapons have reached the point that no other approach is likely to win many matches. (Well, in the 15lb. class anyway)

I have a really sad memory of X-Con vs. Humdinger that lasted about 3 seconds. . . sigh.

Nice analysis, donsun

ucbattlebot--You really may want to consider taking a look at
Survey Monkey to make everything easier on yourself and the folks whose opinions you need.

And to give the QFD what it wants-

4 Offense
3 Defense
5 Maneuverability and control
2 Maintenance


3 Time weapon can be ready between uses or at start up.
4 Destructive capability to opponents
5 Prevention of stall or binding
2 Secondary Weapon (back up weapon)


4 Armors ability to withstand or redirect blows
3 Robot is functional even inverted (flipped upside down)
5 Frames ability to absorb shock


2 User interface is adjustable
4 Simplistic controls
3 Turning radius
3 Time needed to accelerate or decelerate.
4 Reliability of power supply systems.
5 If one or more drive motors are disabled still has some driveability
5 Consistency of power supple throughout the duration of the match
1 Automatic operations that do not require input from an operator


1 Modular frame
2 Modular armor
2 Weapon is modular
5 Easy accessibility too components
4 Time taken to completely replace a component under 20 minuets

jus my opinions, of course--best of luck!

for ur QFD or whatnot..

Please rank the following in order of importance on a scale of (1-5)
(1 – Least important, 5-Most important)

• Offense-3
• Defense-4
• Maneuverability and control-5
• Maintenance-2

Offensive Questions (1 – Least important, 5-Most important)

• Time weapon can be ready between uses or at start up.-4
• Destructive capability to opponents-3
• Prevention of stall or binding-5
• Secondary Weapon (back up weapon)-2

Defensive Questions (1 – Least important, 5-Most important)

• Armors ability to withstand or redirect blows-3
• Robot is functional even inverted (flipped upside down)-5
• Frames ability to absorb shock-4

Controls and maneuverability Questions (1 – Least important, 5-Most important)

• User interface is adjustable-2
• Simplistic controls-2
• Turning radius-3
• Time needed to accelerate or decelerate.-4
• Reliability of power supply systems.-5
• If one or more drive motors are disabled still has some driveability-4
• Consistency of power supple throughout the duration of the match-5
• Automatic operations that do not require input from an operator-1


Repairs and Maintenance Questions (1 – Least important, 5-Most important)

• Modular frame-2
• Modular armor-3
• Weapon is modular-1
• Easy accessibility too components-5
• Time taken to completely replace a component under 20 minuets -4

Please rank the following in order of importance on a scale of (1-5)
(1 – Least important, 5-Most important)

3 Offense
2 Defense
5 Maneuverability and control
4 Maintenance

Offensive Questions (1 – Least important, 5-Most important)

4 Time weapon can be ready between uses or at start up.
3 Destructive capability to opponents
5 Prevention of stall or binding
2 Secondary Weapon (back up weapon)

Defensive Questions (1 – Least important, 5-Most important)

4 Armors ability to withstand or redirect blows
5 Robot is functional even inverted (flipped upside down)
3 Frames ability to absorb shock

Controls and maneuverability Questions (1 – Least important, 5-Most important)

3 User interface is adjustable
5 Simplistic controls
4 Turning radius
4 Time needed to accelerate or decelerate.
5 Reliability of power supply systems.
5 If one or more drive motors are disabled still has some driveability
5 Consistency of power supple throughout the duration of the match
2 Automatic operations that do not require input from an operator (I'm guessing you mean an auto-reset style function)


Repairs and Maintenance Questions (1 – Least important, 5-Most important)

2 Modular frame
3 Modular armor
1 Weapon is modular
5 Easy accessibility too components
4 Time taken to completely replace a component under 20 minuets

Eh, I still think no one has gone to the full potential of manipulators yet. X-Contamination was really cobbled together, so its design never reached its full potential. Remember Alacran? That thing was awesome, and all it had was a manipulator - it picked up shell spinners and dropped them over the side of the arena, if I'm not mistaken.

Well Jeff, you could be right, and it would make me very happy to see someone (maybe from Ransom) prove it, but I can't say I have much hope.

I do have to say that MLEC's "articulated wedge" was really darn effective, even against some pretty good spinning weapons. Of course, I also think that has a lot to do with the overall quality of the bots from Miami Lakes.

I agree with Jeff and Bob about manipulator bots.

While we are kind of new to the whole show, we learn quickly...here's how I see the forcast

1) The weapons of mass destruction route is a real crowd pleaser, while the passive bots get little or no attention.

2) With a powerful spinning weapon, the opposing bot driver has to be a bit better than average and the bot has to be able to take the hit and keep coming. The big weapon bot driver only has to hope for one or two good hits and that the opposing driver makes mistakes or that the opposing bot fails in some way or gets ejected in cases where the arena allows for that.

3) At MLEC, we are changing over to Ti as much as is possible/affordable. While we are building some very solid bots with fast spinning drums/beaters, we hope that good drivers and our articulated wedge bots will be able to neutralize the big weapon clad bots. I think that they can, but the odds are stacked up against them...

IMO the bottom line is a well built defensive bot with a good driver WILL eventually dominate, but it will take a total package or combination of good bot, good driver and good stategy

Honestly im a big fan of good knight. Just a simple wedge but the thing is a real tank and keeps on driving

I agree with Richard, in that for a bot with a non-destructive weapon to be successful, it has to be super maneuverable, and the driver has to be really able to drive it well. Otherwise, it's just gonna get tossed around by the crowd-pleasers. Since you said that you're planning on competing in the BotsIQ competition, I'm guessing that you are planning on building a 15 lb robot. My experience with 15s hasn't been all that successful. I pretty much have 120's down (Copperhead 3 won BotsIQ 2008), but I haven't quite figured out the right way to approach a 15. However, here are some general guidelines for any weight class.

The absolute FIRST most important thing is to have a (donald lol) RELIABLE drive system. And IF you have a spinning weapon, that needs to be reliable too because if a match comes down to a judges decision and your weapon stopped working, that is a MAJOR advantage for your opponent. Even if they weren't the cause of it!

If your design will allow it, I'd say the second most important thing is to have at least some ability to drive inverted. If you are building a bar spinner, or full-body-spinner, then don't worry so much about it, but if you are trying to build a drum bot, MAKE SURE IT CAN DRIVE UPSIDE DOWN! Drum bots flip themselves over all the time, and if you build one where the wheels won't touch the ground upside down... you have a pretty intimidatingly high chance of being knocked out every time you fight. Remember, the only thing the judges look at for a knock out is controlled movement. Even if your weapon is working, if you can't drive, you have been "immobilized" and you lose.

There are autonomous battlebot competitions out there, but BotsIQ is not one of them. Don't waste your time (unless you're a genius and somehow make some incredible auto-honing system that has a 100% success guarantee...)

It's extremely unlikely that you are going to have a drive system that involves any kind of "steering" - almost every bot that competes uses a 2 or 4 wheel drive system where the two sides of the bot are independently controlled, AKA "tank" steering. Both sides going forward means the bot will go forward. Slow one of the sides down, and it will turn. It's pretty simple, don't make it any more complicated than it needs to be.

Actually, that's pretty good advice for everything in battlebots:
Don't make it any more complicated than it needs to be.

That includes modularity. If you have a generic spinning weapon - say a drum-style horizontal spinner, and you have a drum and a thresher that are interchangeable - modularity could work, but for a system as a whole to be modular, it's usually an inefficient use of weight. As is a secondary weapon. You can look at a secondary weapon one of two ways:
1 - it's a good back up
or 2 - it's a compromise.
Secondary weapons are always compromises. It's better to do one thing, and do it really well and use all your resources on one good thing, than to do two things, where you have to divide your resources and not make either as good as one alone would be. The only exception to this would be to have a primary active weapon, and add a wedge. That works a fair amount of the time.

As far as durability goes, you basically need to feel comfortable assembling the bot on a workbench, then driving it right off the edge. It's a battlebot. It needs to be able to take it. Then you need to flip it upside down and drop it again. If you can't drop your bot, it's not tough enough.

Feel free to browse through the forums. There is a lot of information everywhere. Discussions about whether bars or rings are better, about weapon speed, weight, KE, momentum, material... just poke around. :]

Thanks you all for the fast replies and helpful insight. We will be browsing around this board more frequently.

Thanks again.