It would almost certainly be legal for non-spinners in the UK Antweight. There are no specific restrictions on transmitter / receiver type, but must failsafe. The binding process on "real" RC receivers is not as bulletproof as you imagine. Some receivers automatically bind on each power-on, for a few seconds (I have some like that) and any transmitter which was left in bind mode would bind.
Ahhh ok, good to know. I might make a follow up video on this then. If its UK legal, or even if it could be with clearance from an EO it would make a super cheap wedge
I once took a toy stunt car, exact same as the one you show off apart from the colours, took off the bodywork, put on a big chunky 3D printed shell and a metal wedge, came to just under 600g. The issue I found with it was that it just couldn't dry steer (turn while stationary), if you wanted to change direction it needed a run-up first.
Interesting, that could be to do with the four wheel drive. If you still have it, I'd pull off the front two wheels and see if it can turn on the spot then
Ahh cool cool. When four wheel skid steering you drag the wheels sideways a bit as you turn. If the wheels are too grippy or the motors not quite strong enough this drag stops it from turning
Have you ever seen traxxas, tamiya, and team associated are all good brands of RC cars and are not made cheaply and don’t cut corners when it comes to cost. Yes they will never be a combat robot but they are made with quality. Also I have at least one car from each brand I listed and I now they work and last.
Liam has the right idea here. Good RC cars like the ones you mentioned are so expensive its cheaper to just buy the components for your combat robot They are also harder to get, you have to buy them from a hobby shop. The cars I looked at in this video are 100% toys. They are the type you will find in toy stores, department stores and in some super markets. I focused on these because beginners are very tempted by these cheap and easily available toys. thinking that they can be hacked into a combat robot. The reality is that most of them are not suitable
Another great video, Ben. Informative and important to know information. I've been looking for this kind of video for a while, so kudos! As a 'bottom-of-the-rung' amateur builder, I used to find myself looking on eBay and such for cheap RC cars to hack into robots but it's just as easy to start from the ground up and buy the parts that the majority of roboteers are using anyway. You may end up spending a bit more but then you know what's in the bot but also, you can replace parts rather easily instead of dropping more cash on the same RC car because a motor got smashed
Very possibly, I'm not a mechanical engineer or big into (real) RC cars so my first thought was to call it 'car style'. I looked up a few videos and found the term 'Ackerman steering' and assumed that must be the right name, but I could be wrong on that
Good work on this video!!! All the videos of battles I watch look like the bots are moving in an on/off fashion 99% of the time. Do you really need proportional control on a bot?
It may look like that, but I garuntee that 99.999% of robots you have ever seen have proportional control. 2 motors are never exactly the same, one will always be faster, which gives robots slight (or not so slight) drifts in one direction, with proportional control the driver can counter this by pushing "forwards and a little left/right" rather then just "forwards" helping the robot go a lot straighter Any time you see a robot drive in an arc, thats only possible with proportional control. Spinning on the spot at full motor speed will oftern spin the robot out rather then allow the driver to stop it at a set angle, with proportional control you can spin on the spot slower, making the turn way more controlled. This is a very long way of saying that the level of control you get with proportional control, is night and day compared to 4 button control. You can absolutly put a 4 button control robot into a comp but you will be out driven in every fight
Can you use a 2.4 remote with toggle buttons to turn an Ackerman into a tank steer if you use the same motors? Most parent/child combos looking into a robot likely have multiple rc cars to scavenge parts from.
maybe? but you still have the problem that its not proportional control, which means you only have 1 speed per direction which makes a bot much harder to drive
you could, but be aware that most cheap RC systems are not proportional control, they just have full speed in a direction, and while any 2.4ghz toy is a digital radio, they bind on start up so you could have interference/cross talk issues if you use more then one at once and power them in an incorrect order
Yeah and they never will. The code to do bind at start up is written, and most of these cars are built to be as cheap as possible, so they'll use prewritten code over writing their own
The ones I used are Gainer brand. Heres an aliexpress link: www.aliexpress.com/item/33055658226.html?spm=a2g0o.productlist.0.0.6304281acrug5y&algo_pvid=8877309d-ca2c-4dc6-8015-594d9ac928f5&algo_expid=8877309d-ca2c-4dc6-8015-594d9ac928f5-15&btsid=0ab6d59515945206713328109ecac1&ws_ab_test=searchweb0_0,searchweb201602_,searchweb201603_ But personally i got mine from Ebay so that they arrived quicker
You could, but if you use a different brand you will probably find that they have the bad button style controller. I mentioned these specific wall climbing cars because they are the only type of toy RC car I have ever seen with proportional control and pre coded mixing
A fine and informative video. Too sensible, though, so here's some stupid Elli nonsense. I'm a long-time RC aircraft enthusiast, and the beginning of this video is all about steering. Ah, steering. Hey, did you know that over 99% of road traffic accidents are caused by the nut that holds the steering wheel? Meanwhile... It's a strange but true fact that turning a vehicle on the ground and turning an aeroplane in the sky pose similar control problems - to wit, steering without skidding and crashing. Ackermann steering was invented to let old-school horse-drawn coaches make tight turns without skidding, and also to stop them falling over. The sneaky geometry ensured that the inside front wheel turned at a sharper angle than the outer one, which prevented the rims gouging great ruts in Her Majesty's highway and let the coach turn smoothly. Yay. Up in the air, (full-sized) planes face exactly the same problem. A smooth turn requires not just aileron and elevator for roll and pitch, but rudder for yaw, too, to prevent nasty, inefficient (and vomit-inducing) sideslip-type thingy occurring. Using the rudder properly keeps the nose pointing along the line of the turn, and nobody spills their mojito. So... steering whilst driving and steering whilst flying are identical. Well, sort of. This is vital but entirely useless information for anybody involved in any kind of RC modelling. Except for pilots of quad-copters, that is, who use Flight-Controllers and Doobries and the airborne equivalent of skid-steering. (Quad-copters can hover and turn like a dragonfly. A dragonfly with a LiPo battery. Such swanky dragonflies have to register with the CAA, now; it costs them £9 per year, which jolly-well serves them right, I say.) Oh, and why don't all RC planes need additional rudder input to achieve smooth turns? It's a long story involving fluid dynamics and laminar flow and custard and Reynolds Numbers and magic beans. Don't ask. Basically, air behaves differently according to the size of the object moving through it. An Airbus and a mosquito have very little in common - different parameters apply. I mean, you can't get a decent mojito in a mosquito, for starters. And some Mosquitoes were built from plywood and carried bombs and cannons. Life is complicated. Right, I think that just about covers it. Sorry to have wasted your time. I'm going away, now. I'm going to wash my hair. There's lots of it, and it takes bloomin' ages. Wish me luck. I'm not insane, you know.
I liked it until you got to the part that all 27 mhz rc modules will interfere with each other and the mention of using a different 27mhz controller with a different car would work , as I'm very familiar with radio frequency and electronics in general I have learned that these 27 mhz rc modules are not all exactly 27,000 hz, they will be close but not the same therefore they rarely will interfere with one another unless they were made too, it's also possible to use a small plastic screwdriver and adjust trim capacitor if there is one on board , also possible to use a oscilloscope and add or remove resistance or capacitance in the rc tank. Then when you mentioned they have come up with 24 gigahertz instead of 2.4 ghz , I just shook my head.
While yes, 27mhz can have slightly different bands if you go into any store and buy the 3 cheapest 27mhz rc cars from 3 different bands, I'll guarantee you right now that a majority of those cars will interfere with each other. I know because I have a bunch of 27mhz rc cars both from when I was a kid and more resent purchase, all of them interfere with each other. I can reach into my box, grab a car and a controller at random and if they are both 27mhz they will work All of the above is a moot point though, this video is all about building combat robots and no set of modern rules will allow the use of a 27mhz controller/receiver I miss spoke when I said 24 ghz, I know thats not a thing. I did mean 2.4ghz
It would almost certainly be legal for non-spinners in the UK Antweight. There are no specific restrictions on transmitter / receiver type, but must failsafe.
The binding process on "real" RC receivers is not as bulletproof as you imagine. Some receivers automatically bind on each power-on, for a few seconds (I have some like that) and any transmitter which was left in bind mode would bind.
Ahhh ok, good to know.
I might make a follow up video on this then.
If its UK legal, or even if it could be with clearance from an EO it would make a super cheap wedge
I once took a toy stunt car, exact same as the one you show off apart from the colours, took off the bodywork, put on a big chunky 3D printed shell and a metal wedge, came to just under 600g. The issue I found with it was that it just couldn't dry steer (turn while stationary), if you wanted to change direction it needed a run-up first.
Interesting, that could be to do with the four wheel drive.
If you still have it, I'd pull off the front two wheels and see if it can turn on the spot then
@@TeamPanicRobotics I've just propped up the front two wheels using a bit of foam, it is able to spin on the spot.
Ahh cool cool.
When four wheel skid steering you drag the wheels sideways a bit as you turn. If the wheels are too grippy or the motors not quite strong enough this drag stops it from turning
Have you ever seen traxxas, tamiya, and team associated are all good brands of RC cars and are not made cheaply and don’t cut corners when it comes to cost. Yes they will never be a combat robot but they are made with quality. Also I have at least one car from each brand I listed and I now they work and last.
I think the problem is that they are too expensive as a start, then you can just start from scratch.
Liam has the right idea here. Good RC cars like the ones you mentioned are so expensive its cheaper to just buy the components for your combat robot
They are also harder to get, you have to buy them from a hobby shop.
The cars I looked at in this video are 100% toys. They are the type you will find in toy stores, department stores and in some super markets.
I focused on these because beginners are very tempted by these cheap and easily available toys. thinking that they can be hacked into a combat robot. The reality is that most of them are not suitable
Hey have you ever thought of making an over head drill combat robot
Someone made one in the UK, its super cool
Another great video, Ben. Informative and important to know information. I've been looking for this kind of video for a while, so kudos!
As a 'bottom-of-the-rung' amateur builder, I used to find myself looking on eBay and such for cheap RC cars to hack into robots but it's just as easy to start from the ground up and buy the parts that the majority of roboteers are using anyway. You may end up spending a bit more but then you know what's in the bot but also, you can replace parts rather easily instead of dropping more cash on the same RC car because a motor got smashed
I completely agree, while some RC cars will be an easy way in, buying the right parts early will make replacements and future builds a lot easier
*pedant* isn't Ackerman the geometry to stop scrub, and the steering would be rack and pinion or 'car style'?
Very possibly, I'm not a mechanical engineer or big into (real) RC cars so my first thought was to call it 'car style'.
I looked up a few videos and found the term 'Ackerman steering' and assumed that must be the right name, but I could be wrong on that
I am taking some RC motors paired with a malenki nano to make a robot and I’ll let you know how it goes!
Good work on this video!!! All the videos of battles I watch look like the bots are moving in an on/off fashion 99% of the time. Do you really need proportional control on a bot?
It may look like that, but I garuntee that 99.999% of robots you have ever seen have proportional control.
2 motors are never exactly the same, one will always be faster, which gives robots slight (or not so slight) drifts in one direction, with proportional control the driver can counter this by pushing "forwards and a little left/right" rather then just "forwards" helping the robot go a lot straighter
Any time you see a robot drive in an arc, thats only possible with proportional control.
Spinning on the spot at full motor speed will oftern spin the robot out rather then allow the driver to stop it at a set angle, with proportional control you can spin on the spot slower, making the turn way more controlled.
This is a very long way of saying that the level of control you get with proportional control, is night and day compared to 4 button control. You can absolutly put a 4 button control robot into a comp but you will be out driven in every fight
Can you use a 2.4 remote with toggle buttons to turn an Ackerman into a tank steer if you use the same motors? Most parent/child combos looking into a robot likely have multiple rc cars to scavenge parts from.
maybe? but you still have the problem that its not proportional control, which means you only have 1 speed per direction which makes a bot much harder to drive
Make a vdo on how to make a steering system
What about just using the receiver and transmitter to control a set of different motors?
you could, but be aware that most cheap RC systems are not proportional control, they just have full speed in a direction, and while any 2.4ghz toy is a digital radio, they bind on start up so you could have interference/cross talk issues if you use more then one at once and power them in an incorrect order
@@TeamPanicRobotics thank you. I don't plan to make a combat robot but will try use the part for something else.
Seems all they need to address is the binding
Yeah and they never will.
The code to do bind at start up is written, and most of these cars are built to be as cheap as possible, so they'll use prewritten code over writing their own
@@TeamPanicRobotics thats a shame. They seem so convenient with some stuff but glaringly lazy still with controls
What kind of wall climbing car was that. I’ve looked everywhere for one (on amazon) but couldn’t find the same one. Plzzz reply.
The ones I used are Gainer brand.
Heres an aliexpress link: www.aliexpress.com/item/33055658226.html?spm=a2g0o.productlist.0.0.6304281acrug5y&algo_pvid=8877309d-ca2c-4dc6-8015-594d9ac928f5&algo_expid=8877309d-ca2c-4dc6-8015-594d9ac928f5-15&btsid=0ab6d59515945206713328109ecac1&ws_ab_test=searchweb0_0,searchweb201602_,searchweb201603_
But personally i got mine from Ebay so that they arrived quicker
Team Panic so could you basically use any other wall climbing car?
You could, but if you use a different brand you will probably find that they have the bad button style controller.
I mentioned these specific wall climbing cars because they are the only type of toy RC car I have ever seen with proportional control and pre coded mixing
A fine and informative video. Too sensible, though, so here's some stupid Elli nonsense. I'm a long-time RC aircraft enthusiast, and the beginning of this video is all about steering.
Ah, steering. Hey, did you know that over 99% of road traffic accidents are caused by the nut that holds the steering wheel?
Meanwhile... It's a strange but true fact that turning a vehicle on the ground and turning an aeroplane in the sky pose similar control problems - to wit, steering without skidding and crashing.
Ackermann steering was invented to let old-school horse-drawn coaches make tight turns without skidding, and also to stop them falling over. The sneaky geometry ensured that the inside front wheel turned at a sharper angle than the outer one, which prevented the rims gouging great ruts in Her Majesty's highway and let the coach turn smoothly. Yay.
Up in the air, (full-sized) planes face exactly the same problem. A smooth turn requires not just aileron and elevator for roll and pitch, but rudder for yaw, too, to prevent nasty, inefficient (and vomit-inducing) sideslip-type thingy occurring. Using the rudder properly keeps the nose pointing along the line of the turn, and nobody spills their mojito.
So... steering whilst driving and steering whilst flying are identical. Well, sort of. This is vital but entirely useless information for anybody involved in any kind of RC modelling.
Except for pilots of quad-copters, that is, who use Flight-Controllers and Doobries and the airborne equivalent of skid-steering. (Quad-copters can hover and turn like a dragonfly. A dragonfly with a LiPo battery. Such swanky dragonflies have to register with the CAA, now; it costs them £9 per year, which jolly-well serves them right, I say.)
Oh, and why don't all RC planes need additional rudder input to achieve smooth turns? It's a long story involving fluid dynamics and laminar flow and custard and Reynolds Numbers and magic beans. Don't ask.
Basically, air behaves differently according to the size of the object moving through it. An Airbus and a mosquito have very little in common - different parameters apply. I mean, you can't get a decent mojito in a mosquito, for starters. And some Mosquitoes were built from plywood and carried bombs and cannons.
Life is complicated.
Right, I think that just about covers it. Sorry to have wasted your time. I'm going away, now. I'm going to wash my hair. There's lots of it, and it takes bloomin' ages. Wish me luck.
I'm not insane, you know.
I liked it until you got to the part that all 27 mhz rc modules will interfere with each other and the mention of using a different 27mhz controller with a different car would work , as I'm very familiar with radio frequency and electronics in general I have learned that these 27 mhz rc modules are not all exactly 27,000 hz, they will be close but not the same therefore they rarely will interfere with one another unless they were made too, it's also possible to use a small plastic screwdriver and adjust trim capacitor if there is one on board , also possible to use a oscilloscope and add or remove resistance or capacitance in the rc tank. Then when you mentioned they have come up with 24 gigahertz instead of 2.4 ghz , I just shook my head.
While yes, 27mhz can have slightly different bands
if you go into any store and buy the 3 cheapest 27mhz rc cars from 3 different bands, I'll guarantee you right now that a majority of those cars will interfere with each other. I know because I have a bunch of 27mhz rc cars both from when I was a kid and more resent purchase, all of them interfere with each other. I can reach into my box, grab a car and a controller at random and if they are both 27mhz they will work
All of the above is a moot point though, this video is all about building combat robots and no set of modern rules will allow the use of a 27mhz controller/receiver
I miss spoke when I said 24 ghz, I know thats not a thing. I did mean 2.4ghz
Onslaught did not like this video