William "Billfred" Leverette

The news that James Cameron and Mark Burnett were teaming up on a robot combat series naturally got the folks in my circle talking. It’s been almost ten years since BattleBots left the air on Comedy Central, and I still get the “Oh, do they fight each other?” every time I talk about my work with FIRST.  I imagine that means the American consciousness hasn’t forgotten about the concept.  I hope it flies.

There’s a certain appeal about building a combat robot after nearly a decade of building FIRST Robotics Competition robots that are relatively constrained.  But even those robots aren’t cheap–the past two years, we’ve spent at least $1,000 in parts beyond things in the FRC kit of parts, things we raid from old robots and kits, and things we trade for.  If we had to pay a machine shop to do it all and didn’t have discounts, it’d probably be worth more than my car.

Indeed, there seems to be a spectrum of robotics competitions out there today:

• Small, autonomous robot competitions (maze solvers, line followers, sumo, even FIRST LEGO League)–generally, one robot against the clock.
• Task-based robot competitions (FIRST Tech Challenge, FIRST Robotics Competition, BEST, VEX Robotics Competition)–usually alliances of 2-3 teams, offense and defense but nothing too rough.
• Combat robots (BattleBots, Robogeddon, ComBots, etc.)–various weight classes, with the goal of disabling the opponent or in many cases attempting to impress a judging panel should the match reach a time limit.
• I know there are others, and several that are not easily pigeonholed (the 24 Hours of LeMons’ X-ceedingly Bad Idea Prize, anyone?)

Most of the task-based competitions have mechanisms that prevent any significant rough play.  FRC uses mandatory bumpers, VRC and FTC just don’t have enough available power to cause trouble, and BEST has even done fixed-in-place robots in some years.  I think there’s a middle ground that’s been left untapped…

• Still task-based, and probably playing alongside other teams, but a task that’s easily understood and stays largely fixed from year to year.  (Things would change enough to pose an engineering challenge, but not enough to confuse a spectator that watched last year.)  Think something humans would’ve played on American Gladiators or GUTS.
• It’s a full-contact competition–rough play is allowed, active destruction isn’t. Pin, ram, flip, wedge…but leave your flamethrowers and spinning wheels of doom at home.  Very few fouls in the game.
• The robots themselves would be smaller than FRC-scale (which are 28"x38"x60" and 120 pounds without their bumpers or spec battery)–something a person could transport in a reasonable sedan, but something with presence.
• In the early going, keep the robots on a 12-volt system to allow builders to get something competitive and robust together without too much of a stretch.  (There’s no lack of 12-volt motors out there between AndyMark, BaneBots, Robot Marketplace, Harbor Freight, and every car in the local junkyard.)  Things can open up as it hits critical mass.
• Controls are something I’d want to leave reasonably open.  I appreciate the durability and functionality of the VEX Cortex controller, but mandating a $400 system feels like an unnecessary barrier to entry since we haven’t even talked about autonomy.  (But hey, if you’ve got one go for it.)
• Anyone can build a robot and compete.  Individuals, schools, scout troops, old folks, young folks, whoever.

It’s a bit of a junkyard formula, but that’s by design.  There are probably holes in this whole idea (not the least of them the fact that you’d have to get enough of these in one place to have a competition).  Am I nuts, though?