Joint FRA and Event Organisers Meeting - 17 November 2007
Minutes of the Joint FRA and Event Organisers Meeting
17 November 2007
Present:
FRA: Andy Kane (President), Geoff Smith (Chairman)
Event Organisers: James Cooper (Robo Challenge), John Findlay (Roaming Robots), Mike Young, Alan Young, David Young (Robots Live)
Other: Karoline Pannell (minutes)
Apologies received from Geoff Thorpe (Robot Rumble) and DRG
Matters arising
1. Welcome and EO questions to roboteers
AK opened the meeting welcoming those present. Contained in the invitation email to EO’s was the opportunity for them to ask the roboteers any questions via the FRA – no questions were asked either by return or at the meeting.
2. FRA Review of the Year
• The FRA has concentrated on safety issues such as robot cradles, sharp edge protection and TX control. The FRA feel that consistency is needed from EO’s who are meant to enforce the rules.
• During the year there have been several contentious issues between EO’s and the FRA but this has quietened down towards the end of the year with action taken by the FRA or EO’s as necessary. More co-operation between EO’s and the FRA is needed and can be achieved.
• There are approximately 80 FRA members. These figures include the small DRG contingent.
• JC asked what progress had been made with the US. AK said the progress had been slow, however the rule changes to bring the US and UK into line with each other was progressing. In the US, The Robot Fighting League and the sport in general is dying but in the UK it grew by approximately 10% mainly in the featherweight class. AK had also been talking to US TV executives who visited the UK HW Championships in August 2007, however there was no news at present.
3. Event Organiser Consultation
Back in September a consultation document was sent to EO’s as detailed in item 10 of the minutes from the 17th FRA Governing Body meeting held on 13th October 2007. The following is the relevant extract from those minutes.
“
1. For any event advertised on the FRA website that:
A. Participating roboteers must be members of the FRA.
B. Participating robots must be built to FRA rules and recommendations.
C. That combat only takes place in FRA approved arenas.
2. Events advertised on the FRA website at the FRA discretion. Such events should be 14 days apart to alleviate splitting roboteer attendance.
This could be reviewed if we get to the point where any events cannot accommodate the number of robots wishing to attend.
(copy of letter is attached as there is another statement)
3. All robots that have been competing over 12 months must have an active weapon to enter the large events (World, European and UK champs)
4. As normal the UK Champs is run every year but the euro and world champs are held every 4 years.
”
EO comments are as follows:
1A. All EO’s indicated agreement on compulsory FRA membership. Exceptions should be few and limited to occasional foreign entries,1st timers and possibly once per year UK machines.
1B. Unanimous agreement, but again consistency is needed between EO’s as per item 2 above. JC commented that this could be a problem within current weight classes (referring to the FW change) however GS pointed out that the rules state a ‘maximum’ within the class and that there are robots that are currently running even under the 12kg limit.
1C. Unanimous agreement.
2. The FRA thought that it should be down to the EO’s to act responsibility in arranging event dates that do not clash however the EO’s thought that the 14 day gap was not workable due to the number of events and their own arrangements with venues.
3. The ‘active weapon’ proposal from the EO’s was unanimously rejected by the FRA in the 17th Governing Body meeting on the grounds that it gets no support from it’s roboteer members and that one of the aims of the FRA is the “Promotion and education of all things to do with robots, of all weights, shapes and sizes.”
The EO’s agreed that their aim is to provide entertainment and they also want to see robots from newcomers ‘evolve’. GS pointed out that the FRA could not possibly lend its name to a championship if certain robots were not allowed to compete. JC and JF agreed that there is a conflict of interest.
AK and GS then left the room for more open discussion to take place between EO’s with KP acting informally as ‘referee’. When they returned it was agreed by all that it mostly concerned the featherweights and to defer further discussion until a later date.
4. Agreed by EO’s. It was very unlikely that a world heavyweight championship would take place in the US in 2008. If one did go ahead, a deal would also need to be arranged with regard to entries from FRA members. The DRG have the arena to put on such an event but not the means. Marco Van Hek is looking to put on a major event independent of the DRG but EO’s said that they had not been contacted for a quote as yet.
4. Rule Changes for 2008
A précis of proceedings of the 17th meeting of the FRA governing body was put onto the FRA forum on 14th October 2007.
Changes included:
• Increasing the featherweight maximum weight limit to 13.6kg (including gas) and the proposal to remove the 2kg gas allowance on heavyweights. The EO’s expressed unhappiness with the heavyweight change. An invitation for consultation is on the FRA forum but at the date of this meeting, no team had expressed concern over the changes. At the end of the consultation period (31/12/07), the Governing Body will then decide and (if passed) ratify the rule change with effect from 1 January 2009 at their next meeting.
• Changing the maximum 36 volt RMS to 48 Volt RMS. EO’s do not see a problem generally but expressed concern that a high-powered robot such as Storm 2 ‘could’ present a problem with arena wall integrity.
• The proposed change to the hydraulic rule has now been withdrawn by the proposer.
• The pneumatic rules have been simplified and reworded. EO’s agreed with the changes.
• The proposal for a second link for certain robots agreed by EO’s.
• Arena guideline document name to change to “Arena minimum regulations and guidelines” agreed by EO’s.
• John Reid is to be asked to attend the next FRA Governing Body meeting to present an update on his A123 trials. There had been problems with balancing cells and a balancer for 10 cells is not yet available commercially. Featherweights are already permitted to use up to 7 cell packs (24V). Lipo’s are still permitted as per the existing rules.
• The removal of certain gases and HPA from the rules was generally agreed upon by EO’s who already provide CO2. They agree there are safety issues with transporting and charging other gases and that HPA limits are beyond that of current arenas.
5. UK Championships Tender
• One reply had been received by the date of the meeting. The deadline is 31 December 2007. JC was awaiting news of any world championships in the US. He also asked if any UK Championships could be ‘closed’ to UK only robots instead of ‘open’ – this was not decided upon.
• Robots Live proposed a seeding system based upon the standings in the previous year’s equivalent championship event. An idea was also put forward for an integrated league system. The EO’s would need to discuss a formatted which would be overseen by the FRA.
• Robo Challenge events include robots with spinning weapons. JC suggested changing the Class 2 arena specification to include a steel kickplate at the base of the outer polycarbonate wall (with regard to spinners being put out of the arena).
• The FRA would like to have ‘unified’ UK etc. champions but the EO’s are free to have their own championships (such as the existing Winter Tour).
6. Review of Event Reports
• Event reports were made available to EO’s who could read or copy and take away.
• Major problems with TX control had been identified with the UK Heavyweight Championship event particularly criticised.
• XFM events were removed from the FRA forum and will not be sanctioned or advertised until the arena and event safety standards comply with existing FRA rules and guidelines.
7. FRA Programme for 2008
A ‘Tech Checkers’ workshop will take place soon and GS has already proposed a roboteers workshop covering basic electrics and pneumatics. EO’s agree this is a good idea. FRA and EO’s should consult with regard to writing a unified Tech Check sheet which is more relevant to the rule changes.
8. AOB
• The championships tender document was revisited. The FRA were asked what would be their criteria for making a decision. AK made it clear that the document was only to express an interest (rules, accommodation, prizes etc) but not dates, venue or format etc. The EO’s were to propose their plan for the championship as an addendum to the document.
• It was pointed out by JC that some FRA regional reps did not keep members informed about rule changes and there was a general lack of contact from his rep.
• JC suggested giving out annual awards such as those given by Robot Wars such as ‘Most Entertaining’ etc.
• EO’s agree that they will wait and see what develops with the featherweights during 2008 as a result of the weight increase and their proposal to bring in the ‘active weapon rule’.
• GS suggested allowing gas/ air flame throwers on robots. Robots Live advised that venues would not allow this on insurance grounds. Stage pyros were not allowed without fully trained and qualified operators. JF said that Roaming Robots are insured via their lighting operators. AK reported on some use in RFL events in the US involving robots with flame throwers.
• No changes to the arena rules are necessary (apart from the name change). JF proposed using nitrogen to power the Roaming Robots arena flipper. There are no rules covering the specific use of this gas in the newly renamed “Arena minimum regulations and guidelines”.
The meeting was formally closed with AK thanking everyone for their participation.