2013 Build Rules and Competition Regulations

Following discussions last year and development of the LiPo trials in heavyweights during 2012 I am pleased to attach the Build Rules and Competition Regulations for 2013.

Main changes to the Build Rules:
* 2.2 Wording changed to Degrees of freedom
* 6.6 Voltages changed to maximum values of 75V for direct current or 50V for alternating current
* 7.1 Additional requirements for protection of batteries
* 7.4 LiPo approved for use in heavyweights
* 7.5 Cell count for Lithium increased to 12
* 7.8.1 LiPos MUST be balance charged
* 7.8.8 Added requirements for protection (Replaced with 7.1)

Main changes to the Competition Regulations:
* Updated Immobilisation Rules
* Updated Pinning Rules

There will be a period of consultation until the 23rd February 2013.

Please discuss here or email info@fightingrobots.co.uk

I'm glad to see that lipo's can now be used in heavyweights. However (and perhaps I'm missing something here), how can we use up to 75V DC current if the max number of cells is 12 for lipo and limited on other battery types to give well below this?

Not saying that I want to operate at anywhere near that voltage but I'm just being curious.

2 8S in Series?

Or does that bend the rules too much.

I think 75 Volt is a bit much. Why did it go there?
In section 7.5 it says LiPo cells are 3.3 V. Shouldn't that be 3.7 or 3.6, making the max. quantity of LiPo cells 10.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by typhoon_driver

I'm glad to see that lipo's can now be used in heavyweights. However (and perhaps I'm missing something here), how can we use up to 75V DC current if the max number of cells is 12 for lipo and limited on other battery types to give well below this?

Not saying that I want to operate at anywhere near that voltage but I'm just being curious.

---

In explanation:
75V DC is the limit before equipment falls under the Low Voltage Directive.
The rule is now a maximum limit as opposed to a vague mean value.
During charging batteries peak at much higher voltages (30 cell NiCd could hit 60v).
Voltages are limited by the batteries used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marien

I think 75 Volt is a bit much. Why did it go there?
In section 7.5 it says LiPo cells are 3.3 V. Shouldn't that be 3.7 or 3.6, making the max. quantity of LiPo cells 10.

---

LiPo cells during discharge are around 3.3v (depending on cell chemistry).
It's the peak voltage that is important. LiPo's are charged using constant voltage (4.2v per cell) so a 12S pack would be at 50v. As above, a 30 cell NiCd could peek at 60v.
This plus the availability of 6S packs vs 5S packs will give greater availability of commerically manufactured parts for the roboteer.

Low voltage cut out should be mandatory not advisory - what's the issue with requiring that, with robots much could be going in causing more discharge than advised. This is one of the biggest risks with LiPo's and yet nothing seems to be in the rules to mitigate the risk ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teamstorm

Low voltage cut out should be mandatory not advisory - what's the issue with requiring that, with robots much could be going in causing more discharge than advised. This is one of the biggest risks with LiPo's and yet nothing seems to be in the rules to mitigate the risk ?

---

From Grant Cooper
Annoyingly it's almost impossible to buy a lipo cut off that sets off at 50% as they're all designed for planes etc that reset to 0%. The only ones suitable as a cut-off are the ones built into ESC's. As this isn't a safety issue at all and purely helps the cycle life of the battery I think it would be worth putting that as a recommendation rather than a regulation.

I said we should have it as manditory, to stop people pushing the boundaries of the batteries, but was advised that there are no commercially available units you can buy to do this.

John
www.RoamingRobots.co.uk

Regarding the new lipo protection bit, my fw has a monocoque chassis where the removable lid acts to hold the battery in its place in the frame. Is this now illegal?!

Can you email or attach some pictures so I can have a look please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danjr1

Regarding the new lipo protection bit, my fw has a monocoque chassis where the removable lid acts to hold the battery in its place in the frame. Is this now illegal?!

---

ive got a similar issue the battery is in a bit of u shapes aluminium with sticky back foam under it and i was going to put some foam on top so when the lid is on it squashes the foam and holds it in place and it cant move side to side as the speed controllers are either side

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kane

Can you email or attach some pictures so I can have a look please.

---

Have emailed pictures and an explanation.

Cheers

Dan

battery issue also mines mounted on 2mm aluminium in a half sized cased protecting outer with a velcro strap securing the battery in ?

could be fun redesigning within the weight

im now looking at using a bit of aluminium channel into a box but i will need a smaller lipo

I suggest we have another thread for 'Is my robot legal?' rather than cluttering this one up.

I think the rule on lipo protection needs to be made more clear- I don't really know what is satisfactory for

Quote:

---

secured onto a reinforced panel

---

Could I just connect it onto a piece of 6mm aluminium rod with some cable ties? Or Velcro the battery on to some 1/2mm aluminium sheet?
Surely if it needs to be something substantial then the weight of the protection will make it hardly worth using lipos over nimhs?
This rule seems like it is more appropriate for heavyweights than featherweights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max

This rule seems like it is more appropriate for heavyweights than featherweights.

---

I hope so. ive been using the same method of mounting lipos now for nearly two years. Ive take the advised 2mm+ metal above and below lipo rule and applied it to all my bots. To change the rules at this late stage considering there are events taking place within the month would be pretty harsh on a lot of people.

Quote:

---

This rule seems like it is more appropriate for heavyweights than featherweights

---

Actually its the other way around, there aren't many heavies made from plastics!

My wotty cuts out at 20v, maybe Ian could set them up for everyone's requirements based on the Lipo cell count.
As if I went to Lipo it would be 8 cells i would have a low volt cut out at 24v.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazerbotics

Actually its the other way around, there aren't many heavies made from plastics!

---

I can't see much getting through 20mm of hdpe but I have seen axes get through the thin sheet metal used on heavies.

Although in a heavy the batteries are likely to be further away from the walls of the bot so a weapon could never get to them. Would this rule still apply if the batteries were in the centre of the bot?

All looks fine to me. Think I'll weld an extra bit of steel to Drumroll's baseplate where the lipo is though, just to make sure I won't fall foul of the rules.

The only minor quibble I'd say is regarding the wording of rule 11.2:

Quote:

---

Rotational weapons exceeding any TWO of the three limits below must be submitted for review and be preapproved by the event organiser.

---

Obviously the majority of featherweight spinners exceed two of the three limits, but I remember the last time I queried this, I seem to recall someone saying that exceeding the limits was only an issue if you were running a 'spinner' (more akin to a rotary flipper) in a Class 3 arena or less. While that makes sense to me, is it worth adjusting the wording of the rule to clarify this? Just in case any new people coming along that are building spinners for full combat events are worried that they have to stick within these limits to be legal.

Quote:

---

I can't see much getting through 20mm of hdpe but I have seen axes get through the thin sheet metal used on heavies.

---

Not sure what the thin sheet metal is... Problem is with plastic, is a Lipo pack on fire will soon start melting it way through, this is one of the main reasons for the ruling.

rule 7.8.8 doesn't mention any particular material though, maybe the rule needs to be rewritten? I was under the impression that the advised +2mm thick metal plate beneath the lipo cell was going to be made a rule?

I am surprised that there has been no open and democratic discussion with the community at one of the events.

There are some major changes that should have been discussed with the entire community. I also suspect that the unprovoked change to 10 seconds for immobilisation is another way to change the pit rules when opinion and the vote went against it.

Where is the 30 second no-attack immobilisation rule in the 2013 regulations?

This is a consultation period. If there are rules in there that the majority don't agree with, now is the time to make your voices heard!

As sensible as it seems to discuss major changes with the community, the large difference in opinions and the fact we often end discussing side issues as well means that it would take a long time to get anywhere near an accepted wording to incorporate into the rules.

Formulating potential rules and their wording with a few people and then putting it up for consultation (where changes can still be influenced) would seem to be a much more practical approach.

The Li-Po securing rule is rather vague.... Plus is it really an issue in the RC arena?

With the reinforced mount LiPo rule I would have thought it would be better to have a rule where the mount is designed to still hold the LiPo in the event of a fire (so not tape or Velcro) so it cant fall out like during movement of the robot to a safer area, or fall to other areas with in the robot (like against flammable surfaces, like plastic, or expensive equipment).

I think having a secure mount to stop movement of the batter would make the situation a lot easier to deal with, as you know the battery wont fall out, fall against the base and make a molten, fiery, plastic mess which seeps into the floor.

also a port, or entrance for a fire extinguisher, for engulfing the LiPo in Co2, could also be useful, could be clearly marked or something?

I think that an incident is inevitable, no amount of armour and fuses could stop this happening eventually, so its better to just reduce the danger, damage, and make it easier to handle?

Gents at the end of day it is your lipo pack. If you want to secure it using the bare minimum then by all means go ahead but if it goes up in flames it's likely to take the lipo pack, any speed controllers you have along with motors inside oh and the receiver for good measure. It's in everyones best interests to ensure your lipo is well secured. This is why I secure mine in a custom metal box inside the chassis. I wouldn't recommend cable ties.

Thanks for the clarification on the voltage rule Kane. I don't see an issue with going to 12s lipo.

Naaaa duck tape will do :shock: :lol: :lol:

Seeing as we have a few days to debate the rule changes and the community has this opportunity to comment on them or ask for clarification, lets see if there are any problems that may occur. From them.

My bit

LiPo
On the question of LiPo in heavies, I am glad to see this included in the rules but remember the EO's have the last say. I would like to hear what they think and the extra checks and proof of skills they may require. The simple interpretation the protection rule is LiPo in metal box that can be removed from the robot easily, do this and your covered, Voltage no problems with this it makes perfect sense with regard to the law any thoughts.

Walkers
The rule for walkers. from what I can tell this means the leg mechanism must have a leg (femur) joint (knee) and shin (Tib, Fib) like Pilgrim is this correct? If so can one count a crank link? like Spiderbot? any thoughts

The pinning rule
I don't have much of a problem with the rule if the EO's can make sure the count is heard by everyone including the audience as in the fights it is difficult to judge time. I think the EO's would like to comment on the practicality on this point. any thoughts

Pit
I don't think the 10 second rule is a bad idea. (this is for FRA comp fights only,count down questions see above) I am hoping the new Saint will treat the pit like a speed bump anyway! to save confusion on the day can the EO's confirm they will comply to this rule? any thoughts.

Hope none of the above offends anyone if so sorry. :uhoh:

As a small-time competitor, this is my view:

I've built a new, very solid and compact bot to the current rules which has cost me a lot of time, money and effort to the current rules. I understood that there would a some rule that along the lines of a 2mm+ metal plate beneath the lipo so that's what I've done. The base and removable lid are 3mm steel and the lipo is secured between these and two motors cases which in turn are connected to one mount (there is also foam in there for shock protection). This is the best standard of mounting I've used and all my past methods have passed tech check.

Now, just over two weeks from the start of the season, the rules will probably change. There was no warning that this rule would be stated the way it has been and if its going to be a rule that the lipo has to be in metal box, I can't see how this is fair on people who have been working over the winter to a current rule set? I, for one, won't be able to fit such a box around my current battery which would fit in my bot (unless I use tin foil, but again, that is metal!) so that would be a hell of a lot of money down the drain and I'm not too sure whether I'd be willing to take that.

Heres my thoughts with my EO hat on.


Lipos.

We used them in Beast in Dublin ( yes a robot with no armour ) but they are in a box and well hidden. We had no issues with them, they didnt even get warm. if you put them in Thor or Mute where batteries at the end of a fight are too hot to touch sometimes with its mag motors then theres more chance of something happening.

i would have preferred a voltage cut off fitted but if we cant then thats fine.

Although i have aggreed to Lipo's, ( everyone knows i was reluctant ) it is on the basis that we are all monitoring whats happening. For example, just because big nipper ran them without any issues doesnt mean everyone will be ok, and doesnt make them safe, it means the trial has got deeper.

One precaution I am considering is a LIPO charging table which will be near the exit of the building. Remove you batteries and charge together, however it is the responsibility of EVERY roboteer that that table is manned at all times. Batteries under no circumstances should be left unnattended while charging, and if i see a table full of LIPO's on charge I will just pull the plug to that table.

Also be aware, even though the rules say they are allowed in Heavyweights, and we are allowing them, they are still on trial in my eyes, so if there is an incident that I'm not happy with, or a fire, or people start to become complacent then they cant be used.

If rules are in place they should be followed at all times. Even at home !! Your silly not to !

Its your choice, but I will be monitoring the use and how people are treating them.

Pit Rule.

I think the 10 second rule is fair, If you can get out in 10 seconds your fine, the same as getting stuck or breaking down. I will be having a 10 second count signal somehow so we all know.

My thoughts.

John
http://www.RoamingRobots.co.uk

Just to clarify I am talking about LiPo in Heavies not feathers.
A steel feather can be picked up and chucked outside, Heavies are a different matter. :!:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danjr1

if its going to be a rule that the lipo has to be in metal box, I can't see how this is fair on people who have been working over the winter to a current rule set?

---

It's not strictly 'they MUST be in a metal box only', there is also the option of securing them to a reinforced panel.

I think the key here is the definition of 'reinforced panel', and it could perhaps do with some clarification or expansion. I'm assuming this is more aimed at heavyweights since lipos been allowed in feathers for over two years, although obviously if it's in the rules, it'll apply to feathers too.

For example, Drumroll's base is a square(ish) piece of 3mm steel, a pretty solid number on its own. However it also has bulkheads attached to every edge of the square which, as with any material, provides a degree of reinforcement. My lipo setup is currently: baseplate > layer of foam > lipo > layer of foam > metal lid, and it's contained in a 'box' made up of a couple of pieces of 15mm Nylon bolted on either side. The big question is whether the reinforcing by the bulkheads is considered sufficient to satisfy the rule and I'm still alright to have the lipo sandwiched between the base and a metal lid. I'm happy that it is, but just to make sure I'll be welding an extra bit of 6mm steel onto the baseplate where the lipo resides (9mm total).

However clarification for the benefit of other robots/roboteers who are unsure if their build would meet the rules would be beneficial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by craig_colliass

Walkers
The rule for walkers. from what I can tell this means the leg mechanism must have a leg (femur) joint (knee) and shin (Tib, Fib) like Pilgrim is this correct? If so can one count a crank link? like Spiderbot? any thoughts

---

I thought it meant the leg had to lift up & out. Forward & sideways.

Quote:

---

The pinning rule
I don't have much of a problem with the rule if the EO's can make sure the count is heard by everyone including the audience as in the fights it is difficult to judge time.

---

PJ, anything your audio magic can do?

Still can't find the rule where if you haven't touched an opponent for 30 seconds, you're out.

7.8.8 has now been removed and replaced with relaxed wording in 7.1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 7.1 Protection

Batteries must be adequately protected within the body shell and securely fixed to minimise the chance of
being punctured or coming loose during combat. In addition, packing such as high density foam is
recommended to reduce the shock of impacts.

---

Hopefully this will make things clearer for all. The wording was never intended for machines that have heavy armour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by craig_colliass

The rule for walkers. from what I can tell this means the leg mechanism must have a leg (femur) joint (knee) and shin (Tib, Fib) like Pilgrim is this correct? If so can one count a crank link? like Spiderbot? any thoughts

---

This is a wording change only to make it a little clearer. To be allowed the additional weight a crank or cam is not sufficient. The system would still only have one degree of freedom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RogueTwoRobots

Obviously the majority of featherweight spinners exceed two of the three limits, but I remember the last time I queried this, I seem to recall someone saying that exceeding the limits was only an issue if you were running a 'spinner' (more akin to a rotary flipper) in a Class 3 arena or less. While that makes sense to me, is it worth adjusting the wording of the rule to clarify this? Just in case any new people coming along that are building spinners for full combat events are worried that they have to stick within these limits to be legal.

---

This rule allows event organisers to vet what machines are coming to their events and hopefully catch anything dangerous prior to the roboteer turning up to the event. While not really a problem with featherweights, should an organiser put on a class 2 heavyweight event we might need to look at this more closely.