| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Steve Hassenplug wrote:
> I had an idea for a way to mount the C-4 board, but I wanted to know what people
> think.
>
> The general idea was to remove the blue "legs" and build a LEGO replacement,
> instead of trying to come up with a way to secure the original legs to the
> ground.
>
> That would even make it possible for someone to build the board mounding into
> their robot. (if that was allowed)
As an outsider with no standing that seems like it ought to be disallowed,
because if two bots that had the board built in were to compete, what would you
do then?
But a LEGO base seems nifty!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: C$ board design
|
| (...) Each robot would only be able to "build in" an attachment to the [left] side of the board. (as they face the board) The other side (right to me, left to you) would still be controlled by the other robot. I played around with a few ideas this (...) (21 years ago, 10-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
| | | Re: C$ board design
|
| (...) If you read the rule set posted: (URL) find that the board mount is a common piece, separate from both robots. What Steve is proposing is to only use the yellow board without the blue legs and replacing the legs with a common frame design. (...) (21 years ago, 10-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | C$ board design
|
| I had an idea for a way to mount the C-4 board, but I wanted to know what people think. The general idea was to remove the blue "legs" and build a LEGO replacement, instead of trying to come up with a way to secure the original legs to the ground. (...) (21 years ago, 10-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
35 Messages in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
