Not RC stuff but kind of close....

[BGP Spook]

You need Quicktime to view this link. EDIT: Some have suggested it is more enjoyable if you mute the sound.
http://www.asee.org/chicago2006/wp-content/robots.mov

This is a sample video off of the ASEE website from a yearly competition at a conference in Chicago. The competition is for first and second year engineering students.

The download is fair sized at 10 megs (it took me two minutes bouncing between ~200kbps and ~100kbps), so I recommend you open it in a window and read the rest of this while you wait.

I am in my first year of an engineering degree and am a member of my colleges engineering club.
Our club particapated in this competition by making a small robot car.

The link above(click it already if you haven't) is a video shot by someone and features several (but not all) of the cars from the competition highlighting the two prevalent design philosophies.
Circumnavigable robots and splitter robots.
Note:There are other ways of "running the course" but given the size restrictions and a budget of $350 the more exotic solutions were shunned.


The circumnavigable robots can be subdivided into two groups:
wall followers and line followers.

The splitter robots can be subdivided into two groups also:
dead reckoning robots and line following robots.

Their are trade offs with each of the major groups and each of the subgroups because of the way the rules are setup.

Go here for a .pdf of the rules but I will try to summaries the important ones.

To skip the rules you can skip down to when I say "WHEN"
Robot and competition rules:

Robot volume restriction of 12"x8"x6" (LxWxH) upon deployment, may be any size after the beginning of a run.
Robot cost restriction of $350.
Robot may hold no more than 12-balls.
Must not be a safety hazard to persons or property.(definition is meant to be very broad)
Must use a zero emissions energy source.
Must use commercially available materials and techniques for manufacturing.
Must not use "major components" of things like RC cars or K-nex or Legos...(something like a wheel or a motor is fine but you can't base your robot off of a kit of any sort or anything like a kit).

Scoring and run rules:

Points are awarded such that first ball = 1 point second ball = 2 points ... twelfth ball = 12 points, if the following criteria are met.

Balls must be deposited in the corner pockets in a continuous clockwise or counter-clockwise sequence. If the sequence is broken for whatever reason (ball misses the next pocket in sequence or sequence changes from clockwise to counter-clockwise, or if the ball drop fails the 3 second rule* are examples) then the the ball does not count the sequence resets and the points awarded for the next ball in the new sequence start at 1 point.

Each ball drop must have at least three seconds between ball drops.*

A "run" lasts 120 seconds.

If the car fails to start fully, crashes after start, runs out of balls (considered to be out of balls when the last ball hits the ground or pocket floor as the case may be), or exceeds the time limit then the run is over.

If all 12 balls are deposited with time left over then the score is multiplied by a bonus factor figured by dividing 120 seconds by the number of seconds the it took to complete the run. Such that 78 * 120/60 = 156

The balls can not be modified in any way. There is also an accepted minimum size for the ping-pong balls.

Balls must stay "in the pocket" to be counted. See .pdf for explanation of the track.

Must start on the "crack" of the track. See .pdf for an explanation of the track.
Basically the track is two sheets of plywood butted together so the car must start somewhere roughly along a line down the middle of the track.

WHEN

Naturally the devil is in the details, as many robots failed to:
1. Account for human error in deployment.
2. Follow the rules exactly as laid out. (They are quite clear, if they are a little lengthy.)
3. Account for variability in the track.
4. Properly trouble shoot their programing and/or hardware.

The two biggest problems most of the robots had were breaking the 3 second rule mention above (for whatever reason) or ball delivery/feed problems.
Both of which are simply devastating to the final score.

Our robot had none of those problems, we just weren't quite fast enough. We averaged about 45 seconds for a completed run. 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, went to robots that were making completed runs between 36 seconds and 45 seconds. Our performance earned us 4th, but our PowerPoint presentation ran long and we were docked enough points to slip into 5th.

1st place went to a circumnavigating wall follower that literally crashed it's way around the course. Maybe a small miracle it survived each run.
2nd(circumnavigating line follower, like ours) and 3rd place (line following splitter) were taken by Monroe Community College.

Not sure who we lost 4th place to. I am inquiring via email with my team mates as I was not able to attend due to summer semester obligations.

Regardless the top 3 positions were taken by cars made entirely(or almost entirely) by CNC machines.(easy precision, the holy grail for an engineer)

Our car was made entirely from purchased parts (wheels, servos, motor) and parts that were made by hand with a drill, a saw, and a file.

If you were smart and opened the link at the top of this rambling then it should have loaded by now.

Our robot was the only one in the video that had a "perfect score."

[Brians256]

Congratulations! Nice job.