You seem to have missed the point of the consultation and AGM. There is no need to be hostile. There has been no vote and opinion was split, but went for it, not against.Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Invade
Printable View
You seem to have missed the point of the consultation and AGM. There is no need to be hostile. There has been no vote and opinion was split, but went for it, not against.Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Invade
There is no rule about 30 second no-attack immobilisationQuote:
Originally Posted by psychostorm
Cheers Kane!Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
Hi Kane I think you thought I was using a cam as the mode of propulsion the rotating cam being the leg itself this would only have one degree of motion so would not count.Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
I think Spiderbot though not a fighting machine anyway, would count as the link from the crank goes through the main support link to the leg making a forward and back motion and from there the leg moves up and down backwards and forwards via the top support centre link.
Anyone interested hears a link.
http://www.mechanicalspider.com/concept.html
Hi Criag,
I think that this statement sums up the specification quite well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrees...om_(mechanics)Quote:
Originally Posted by wikipedia
I was thinking it might be worth allowing machines that use walking mechanisms with only one degree of freedom to be classed as walkers with a lesser weight advantage. Perhaps we could look at this for 2014 if someone is serious about building something like that?
It's not a very good description of it. I'm trying to avoid getting involved in the 10/30 second pit furore.Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
Where is this rule in the 2013 regulations?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Competition Regulations 2012 page 4
That's the old rules on immobilisation. They now read:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Competition Regulations 2012
Thanks for the clarification Kane. For Pilgrim and Spiderbot it doesn't matter anyway, they don't fight.
I have an idea for a walking mechanism I will discuss with you when we next cross paths as I am thinking of a Feather walker. :idea:
Just to get back onto the battery tittter titter.... I will freely admit I know little about these lipos... yes i know your all surprised because i am the doggers balls but seriously...when i need to know anything I consult Grant Cooper or Dave Moulds both having a good knowledge and i trust to steer me in the right direction....so with this new rule coming in can i just say that i have been advised toward a certain few battery types and to steer clear of the cheapo stuff. Buying cheapo batteries is all good but they are not good, dont do what they say on the tin,,,people will start to push them and then thats where the trouble starts. I advise you seek advice if you are not sure on Lipos.
There is my 2 pence.... please carry on about your duties.
Firstly we do apologise if our previous post comes across as hostile. It certainly was not meant to be so or perceived as being so from our end.Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
We are quite confused. I do not doubt that these rules are up for consultation, but the AGM is after the consultation ends, which would be the ideal situation in which to resolve the issue fairly. We are also confused as to where the immobilisation change has originated from. The pit rule was obviously an issue that needed addressing but why has the immobilisation rule been changed with it?
The other instance of a major change that we can remember was the change of the feather weight limit from 12kg to 13.6kg, which was discussed and voted upon at the AGM at Haven. The new rules do not concern us, but we are concerned as to why issues are no longer addressed in this way.
I think the new Li-Po securing wording is good. Blu-Tac is out? :p
I suggested a Li-Po charging table for the FW Uk Champs. At the moment there is just a rat's nest of cables, in amongst are several Li-Pos charging.
Plus means we can keep an eye on people daisy chaining extension leads together. Last year I unplugged my extension lead to a mass chorus of groans and no power alarms as several chargers switched off.....
a communal table would be a good idea, but i would have thought it would be illogical for every one to watch them, surely it would be better to have each lipo and charge clearly marked, so if someone does see something suspicious then they can quickly find the owner. and the fact that charges do like beeping when something goes wrong, people would be aware of it pretty quick?
AND regarding the walker rule, i would like to find out what people think, as i plan to attempt one eventually as im bored of driving a lifeless box :P but would have thought that cam operated leg, type things could have some alowence, but maybe not the full 200% as i don't think that would be needed. or the rule could just be left open, and any one building a walker just keeps the forum/community informed so people know whats going on and can post there views if they think its unfair.
As seeing walkers would be awesome, but if someone then goes and makes basically light-weight Little spinner with legs, and trys to fight it as a feather, then that would be taking advantage of the rules.
Our point as an EO regarding Lipos
Obviously there are concerns over running Lipos at events, however if used and treated carefully and kept within there limits there shouldn't be any issues. Would thing I would encourage is for teams (especially heavyweights) to learn and understand about the technology before jumping in with them.
It had been spoken about having a list of approved manufacturers etc, however we are going to allow any, but we would strongly suggest you buy the best equipment you can afford. Don't go out and buy the cheapest cells/chargers you can find. If this starts to become an issue then we would have to look at an approved list.
As John has mentioned, something that I have spoke to the Big Nipper guys about, who ran the trial, is to have a specific Lipo charging table, as somebody must to watchhing Lipos when on charge. We know at events you are used to plugging in your charger and then going off for a natter, but with Lipos this cant be done, therefore by having all the chargers on one table, then it only needs one person to monitor them. This will be up to the roboteers to organise who's watching and when.
Please remember the EOs are putting up alot of risk by allowing LiPos, and we're the one's not receiving any of the benefits. The situation will be constantly monitored, and if there becomes to many problems/issues, they will just get banned. I have no issue with banning individual teams from running them if they do not follow the rules or are in anyway mis-using the batteries. It's our insurance and contracts with venues on the line, and we cannot allow anything to put these at risk.
It's up to you guys to make sure you are competent in using them, and are following the procedures. One person running the wrong type of batteries, charging them incorrectly etc could ruin it for everybody, we cannot police everybody all of the time.
Sorry for the harsh line on this, but I hope you can see where we're coming from.
Would it be possible for a shuffle bot to claim a weight advantage if:
It weighed in as an exposed wheel robot at the regular weight,
then could attatch a shuffling mechanism pod (that was separately weighed) to the side with the wheel axle (wheels removed) linked to the shuffle mechanism.
That way you could never use the walker weight for a weapon. The weapon would have to fit in the roller weight limit.
Not that it matters much but I disagree with this statement. Featherweight fights have gotten far more interesting since lipos came along due to the energy density. May not be the same for heavyweights but I disagree with this view.Quote:
and we're the one's not receiving any of the benefits
Regarding a charging table again I disagree. If you don't have the discipline to stand or sit beside your bench for 15 minutes whilst they charge (and the charging times are far less) then you shouldn't be running them. EOs shouldn't be afraid to throw someone out of a competition if they don't follow the rules in the pits regarding lipo.
Ok.. bear with me this is going to be quite a long one
1) Charging Table = Epic Fail
Come on guys, think about this stuff - you're suggesting that one person should have the responsibility of supervising a table full of LiPo's charging ? If the risk is big enough for us to take these steps, then we are suggesting there is likelyhood of an issue.
What happens when something goes wrong, what if there is damage to a building or a fire, what happens if that person gets badly burned trying to rescue your LiPo's from the building as they were 'responsible' for them ?
If (god forbid) any damage hapenned to the building the insurance company would immediatley ask who was responsible for supervising where the fire took place, and I don't believe that any individual should have responsibility for someone else's LiPos over which they have no knowledge of condition or past treatment, and due to not having a low voltage discharge, don't even know if a danger is present.
I am happy to supervise my own batteries charging, but to ask someone to be responsible for others is naieve and inappropriate.
Sometimes I think this stuff is just thrown together without any thought for impact or legal sides.
If you charge, YOU are responsible for supervising YOUR charging.
2 - Low Voltage Cut Off
Just because there isn't a low-voltage cut off that will work in our environment (and I have not done research on if there is) doesn't mean we should just say 'oh well then we won't use them' - there is a REASON that they are used elsewhere ! The effort involved in getting such a device is small, even smaller given that we have such a close relationship with those who manufacture our speed controllers and this could EASILY be written into the PIC code. I am sure that Ian would be willing to up-version his software for those running LiPo's and that should just be considered part of the investment required in doing it safely.
This is like saying 'because I can't find a welding mask that fits my head today, I just won't bother with one'
We have identified a risk that we can't currently mitigate, so rather than hiding from it and saying it get's all a bit complex to deal with so we'll just make it reccomended, let's come up with a way of mitigating it. To not do so would be remiss ! Any person doing an investigation into an incident would Google LiPo's and Robots... find this thread on the FRA's own forum and realise we knew about the risk but didn't do anything about dealing with it ?... We need to think this stuff through in terms of the impact of something going wrong, not just some guidelines for the sake of guidelines.
3 - Fire Extinguishers
Just the very fact that people are saying 'we should have CO2 fire extinguishers around in case of a fire' scares the living daylights out of me that people simpley DO NOT understand the technology we are talking about here. A CO2 fire extinguisher will be next to useless for a LiPo fire - the ONLY extinguisher that would be of any use is the new Type D (yellow) ones - for details see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_extinguisher#Class_D. The other option is water which will ensure that any material around the LiPo fire (which will get VERY hot for a VERY short space of time) will not catch fire except that then reacts with the Lithium in nasty ways. Bottom line, where is this guidance for event organisers ? Do you guys understand what you would need to provide to do this in safety ?
A Consultation is a great thing to have, and I think those reacting with the 'how dare you approach' should view this as what it is, an opportunity to discuss. I am sure that those writing this stuff will take on board all the feedback and requests for clarification.
Happy to speak to anyone who has any questions, FRA or otherwise - at the moment 10/10 for the FRA starting a consultation, now we need to ensure that we all work together to drive the right plan, and don't shy away from dealing with difficult/awkward issues along the way.
No problem, it's easy to misread the tone of some text.Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Invade
The reason we don't wait until an AGM to vote on matters is because discussing rules can be time consuming and doesn't always represent the community's view as best as it could. They are a great opportunity for open debate on matters or when a simple Agree/ Disagree is required.
The previous rules were fairly ambiguous around immobilisation and especially the pit. 10 seconds is a much more realistic time for a countdown. This has all been rewritten to be clear and offer no room for mis-interpretation (hopefully). The new rules make the rules of engagement clear to both the roboteers and the audience.
The consultation period provides time for the community to provide their input; agree, disagree or have a completely different view. Of course we hope everyone is happy and the new rules can be brought into effect at the end of the consultation period. But should anything require further discussion, that can be done so at the AGM and if neccessary a vote may be called.
Over discharge is not a safety risk. Yes, it will severly damage the cells. Chargers will generally detect the over discharge and refuse to charge the pack, or charge the pack with severly limited capacity. In the worst case that the charger causes a battery fire the fire will be contained in a LiPo bag.Quote:
Originally Posted by teamstorm
Fire extinguishers are an interesting subject. As you point out there is a risk of fire to surrounding objects. Only class D extinguishers are suitable for putting out a LiPo fire. However the pack sizes we are using and LiPo bags means that the fire will have a limited burn time and containment. CO2 would be most suitable on any equipment in the vacinity without leaving a big mess or creating a risk of electrocution. Water extinguishers must not be used on live electrics.Quote:
Originally Posted by teamstorm
The greatest risk of fire is through puncturing a cell. This is unlikely to occur outside of the arena.
Quote:
Originally Posted by psychostorm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Build Rules
After looking at advice from a wide range of experienced users, also the history and application of this battery type.
I think the rules and the Eo's conditions do control the risk posed by the LiPo battery safety questions.
However some sort of low voltage cut off device developed in this community would be a good addition to safety.
Perhaps electronic inventors would like to put their not inconsiderable intellects and talents to address this problem and come up with a device that will cut off power at the given voltages so as to eliminate this risk.
Hi Craig....I have a friend who is very good with the old circuitboards...I have asked him to look into making a voltage cutoff switch for my robots and Yank. He said it would be possible and is looking into it tonight. I will get a few made up if there is the interest???
Hi Shane
I would be interested in one. For the new saint :mrgreen:
Perhaps if this is a point of interest for a lot of people it may be worth starting a new thread to discuss the parameters and functionality of such a device.
a device would be useful, as far as im aware sabertooths are the only escs with low vloltage cut outs, although a telematary system could also be used, http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/stor ... metry.html
would give you a warning when your running out of power, and need to go easy? although i sopose that relies on the roboteers to stop, which could be hard in the heat of battle.
but such a device could be linked to an external bec control relay, so when switched ie, siren or light the output signal could engage/disengage a bec relay causing control to be lost and therefore all controllers and weapons etc would revert to failsfe positions,
just an idea i have considered
One thing I think is an issue as much as where people buy their lipo's is were people buy thier lipo sacks. A good lipo can cause the same damage if it catches fire as a cheap one. The major failsafe is that they are contained in a device which should prevent serious damage occurring to anything else.
There are a few 'fake' lipo sacks which you can buy and these simply do not do their job.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEkewCjiDs0
Personally I always buy from a good UK supplier (al's hobbies, Hurricane models etc). Which gives some security. That said it is not unknown for reputable dealers to get duped by their suppliers (horse meat lasagne anyone?). Would it be sensible to introduce a 'metal box' for charging as this can't possible be faked?
Andy
Has anyone had any luck with a low voltage cut out for Lipo's ? If the ruling does get changed to mandatory then my robot would fail on this point.
Also, I've been reading the pages, and I totally agree with Ed regarding a lipo charging table and the fire extinguishers. My only problem with charging lipo's and having to stay with them, you miss all the action, especially if you're at the Robochallenge event (can't see the arena from the pits).
I did read that lipo's have to be secured down now. My Lipo's have padded protection around where they are situated so they don't rub on anything, but with the lid off I can move them freely (the bar that holds them down goes in with the lid). will that suit purpose or do I need another securing method ?
I don't want to be disqualified before I get to the UK champs.
OK, help my aching brain. At which voltage should the Lipos cut off at?
Is there potential in modifying one of these things? http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Low-Voltage-L ... 337f8a9f33
We have already purchased one to experiment.
Lipos don't like going under 3volts per cell.
If we are being realistic about a cut off then it will have to cut power to the receiver or robot as an alarm will be drowned out in the arena and a light would be easy to ignore or confuse with the power LED. That raises two issues, if it's a main power cut off it would have to be capable of flowing 200A through it. Unlikely to be reliable or cost effective.
That leaves you with cutting power to the receiver which again is not ideal as you still have a robot capable of movement by itself (although of course the tech check should omit this risk).
Other issue, how do you test the cut off during the tech check?
Set our cut offs to a standard of 3.35v per cell and have a discharged battery to hand (in a LiPo bag) that will be slightly below that?
I'm not entirely joking.
I don't know how easy it is on these things to change the point at which it sets off the alarm, if it can be done on the fly we could set it well above the safety mark for tech checking and lower it to a realistic point before battle?
I bought a cut off from technobots and it has a small rotary resistor with which you set the cut off point. It goes from 3.5 to 3V and even has a few little lights on it. I went without it last year but I may slip it in this time if there is space.
And David, we hole our Lipos down with industrial velcro. Its a pain to get them out but when they are in they are going nowhere! I had to Lever them off with a wooden ruler first time round. I was afraid I had got them stuck!
Is any good, never used lipo's but just looking at whats needed
http://www.dimensionengineering.com/products/liposhield
It will not work with robots as it does not reset to 50% throttle which is what turns of our escs, it resets to 0% which is full speed reverse!Quote:
LipoShield is intended for aircraft with 0-100% style one direction only throttle. A future product will be aimed at cars.
We were thinking of putting it on the wotty, on the on/off channel so it will just shut the speedo down
this 1 works with cars and boats so you should get forward and reverse
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Novak-Smart-S ... 4850a52ab7
only applicable to 2 to 4 cells. No good if you are running 12s!
The rules say 10S max for Lipos, or have they changed that?
Go read the consultation rules at the start of the thread/Kanes summary of the changes.
Agm's are dangerous lol, that's why the weight went up. Unfortunatly people make decisions on the current benefits rather than thinking of the long term causes.
I think we need to evolve the rules to create diversity, yes there will be short term dissadvantages in having to modify robots etc but the long term advantage of increasing the spectacle of the sport and inspiring audiences to get involved is far more important.
So when discussing rules (apart from those related to safety) please think of the long term benefits and how it effects the sport as a whole.