I think its a good idea so long as the pit crew know the score. Its very easy for me to fit one.
Mark - do the 4QDs still draw current once the capacitors are charged up?
Printable View
I think its a good idea so long as the pit crew know the score. Its very easy for me to fit one.
Mark - do the 4QDs still draw current once the capacitors are charged up?
Yeh Jonno - unless the LED/bulb is broken :-(
thats true, they could be not working, although faced with 15 robots dead in an arena, which one do you go for first ? :)
Its not definate, but it least its an indication.
Jonno
I wouldnt go for any mate - id leave it up to you to sort out ;-p hehe
Mark , it is not a case of the FRA approving my events or not, or of me agreeing with theirs.
The insurers of the event are the approving authority, they have their own experts whose opinions they seek as to whether the event is safe enough to insure.
My insurers accept my experience and certified ability and it is up to them whether they need to apply the FRAs rules or continue to accept mine.
It is virtually impossible to run a public event without insurance these days, and very foolish of anyone who tries to.
I have no quarrel with FRA using whatever safety rules they like at their events to suit them and their insurers.
However at my event, within the Yeovil Festival of Transport, I run the event to suit my insurers and the YFT organisers.
They are happy to accept that, without any additional input from the FRA or any other organisation.
I am not rejecting the FRA€™s rules, or saying that their experts who drew them up are wrong, I just reserve the right to apply higher standards if I see fit.
Power indicator lights will only be accepted as an optional accessory at my events and play no part in safety.
The YFT is a huge event with hundreds of exhibitors and has been run very successfully for many years by a very experienced team.
They have their own established standards that all exhibitors, me included, have to come up to.
Within the robot fighting sport, we do not need different groups nit-picking at each other€™s rules. That will do us no good at all.
We should accept that, as long our events are properly insured, it is up to the individual expertise of the organisers to run the show properly.
Rodger, you are right in that at the end of the day it comes down to the insurers who set the minumim standards but I dont see why you are against the light. If all robots require a light and you put the link in during a tech check and it does not come on then it fails. If its on when the link is out then it fails. Even in our robot we have had wires short to the chasis on a number of occasions and if that happened with a wire before the link it is possible for it to become active. A light would indicate this. How else would you know unless you did a full tech check after each fight. We have two power lights one across each speed controller. Whats the point in the FRA if people dont follow thier guidelines. Read some other threads you will find alot of people wanting to standardize the rules for everyone not just the UK. It will take alot of time but hopefully it will happen. I must point out that I dont speak for them but Im sure that they will listen to you as you do have alot of experiance and have been doing this longer that me.
Jim, I would have to check to be certian but I thought it was a couple of mA.
I should also point out that I dont like the failsafe light idea as it stands and using the PCM Rx would not be allowed under this rule as you cannot be sure they are in failsafe without using a dedicated channel and even then its not certain that it will work unless setup very carefully. PCM Rx are the best for rejecting interfeance as they have active error control.
I have nothing against the light as I have already said, if you want to fit one then fine.
At my shows I will not use the light as a reliable power indicator, only a removed link means power off as far as I am concerned.
Thanks for the rejection of the link socket lamp! Always good to get constructive criticism. :proud:
Weve read this with great interest and its causing a fair old bit of debate again amongst the committee.
Please bare with me, Im not a politician so find this stuff quite hard work, but Id like to clarify a couple of things if I can:
We understand Rogers and others point of view, as with every EO the final decision on safety practices is down to him, as its his neck (metaphorically speaking) thats on the line should there be an accident.
Its unfortunate that Roger was not a member of the FRA at the time this rule was introduced, as his view would have undoubtedly then have been taken into account along with all the other EOs.
We hope Roger will join the FRA over time and become a contributor, as has been said above.. theres no question as to his own technical knowledge and he has a perfect right to reject the FRA rules if he wishes.
Saying that.
This wasnt a rule that was introduced for the fun of it, there was and is great concern that at the most dangerous time of roboteering i.e the load and unload of robots, EOs, roboteers and arena staff had absolutely no external way of telling what state a robot was in.
In the instance of the afore mentioned accident last year, a roboteer returned to the robot after placing it into the arena because it appeared to not be working, he then proceeded to fiddle with the internals of the robot without removing the link, something which is very easy to forget to do in the heat of the moment. Due to the lack of exterior indication of power on board, the arena staff were not aware of this and had no means of being aware of this, they just had to trust that the roboteer was looking after himself properly. As it turns out, the link was in and the robots weapon was live.. the flipper fired while the roboteer was leaning over the robot and he was struck fairly soundly in the forehead region and thrown backwards a good 3 foot.
Luckily for all involved the arena door absorbed some of the force of the strike before it got to the roboteer... so the accident was not as serious as it could have been despite giving everyone present a damn good scare, and the roboteer in question a very nice bruise!
Returning to robots after activation is something that as EOs weve all seen on more occasions than we care to mention, and fiddling with robots while the link is still in is equally as common.
We would be extremely silly as live event organisers not to recognise this and try and provide a relatively easy to install and effective solution to the problem, remember that not only could an accident of this type be nasty for the roboteer involved, it could have far reaching ramifications for the event organiser and the growing live sport in general.
There is also the problem that should an accident of this type happen again after we as an organisation became aware of the issue, we could in theory with no solution in place actually be accused of being lax in setting down our best practice procedures.. this would not be a good thing for anyone, especially considering the great progress we have made over the past year or so with live event safety standards.
In closing:
The light has clear plusses for all the event organisers involved in the FRA, they between them run the large majority of the live events in this country and the technical team and roboteers that advised on this solution have all agreed it was the best way to deal with the problem without causing undue technical issues for the roboteers.
If it turns out over time it doesn€™t work, we€™ll undoubtedly re-evaluate but for the foreseeable future the power light is required for all FRA events in order for a robot to be run.
It€™s been suggested that we provide a guideline and suggest acceptable parts for roboteers so as to take some of the confusion out of the issue, I€™ll make sure it€™s discussed at the next committee meeting and that progress is made on this as soon as is possible.
Thanks once again for the feedback, this is after all part of what the FRA was about right from the start, we€™re not here to dictate but to garner opinion and try and take informed decisions on what is best for the sport.. I hope to see this long continue :)
Regards
Samuel Jones
FRA safety executive
How big and bright would a lamp have needed to be to be visible to the arena staff under those circumstances?
quote:
the arena staff ... just had to trust that the roboteer was looking after himself properlyIm sorry, I dont agree. The arena staff dont have to assume the roboteer isnt being daft through adrenaline - - they have to insist they SEE the link before allowing him to proceed. And insist loudly if need be!
What all events need is an officious, anal-retentive safety officer who has the presence of mind to yell LINKS OUT!!! as roboteers approach their machines.
Richard, sadly thats not always as simple as it sounds. With robots spread around the arena at the end of the fight - and most robots without visible links this is a good ADDITION.
No-one is suggesting that people dont do what you say, and no-one is suggesting that a light being out says a safe robot.
What people ARE suggesting is that whether or not a roboteer is near a machine, if someones left their machine at arenaside whatever the case, if the light is ON, the robot is dangerous. Whether you can see the link in or not (and with links behind doors thats usually impossible).
I really cant see the problem that this has caused. This is an ADDITION to all common sense, not a replacement for it. I have no idea why it is causing such a fuss.
Ed
http://www.stormrobot.comhttp://www.stormrobot.com
I fully agree that a reminder that the link is still in is a very good idea, BUT it must be reliable.
Far too many robots are badly built and their wiring does not conform to the lowest of any standards.
Solder joins are often horrible and the wires just fall off the connections, crimp joints are made with the wrong tools and the wires just fall out, wire sizes are wrong, and insulation too soft for the harsh environment, I have seen too many poor jobs, even on robots built by experienced engineers.
The €œpower€ lamp fitted or retro-fitted in a hurry will, in too many robots, be of this low standard of installation.
It seems such a simple task to some of us to fit a lamp or LED and two wires but some builders will make a mess of this simple task.
To be sure of the reliability of the lamp installation, my event technical inspections would have to include the inspection of the quality of all connections on all wires within the robot that could affect the safety lamps reliability. This would require too much time, and the partial dismantling of some robots, to be practical.
There is another problem with the light, if the event is held outdoors in bright summer sunlight the LED/lamp will, inmost cases, not be bright enough.
You may think that I am being too severe in my criticism of the power indicator and that I want it to too high a standard.
But a wallop by a good flipper or getting hit in the head by an axe such as Axe-Awe€™s will seriously injure or kill you just as quickly as any of the nasty military devices that I have worked on most of my life.
As an event organiser I must be aware that this €œsafety feature€ lamp may not work reliably so I cannot therefore use it as a safety device.
My insurers know I am an experienced supervisor and have been responsible for overseeing inexperienced engineers work, so will reject the excuse €œthe light was out so we thought it was safe€Â.
It was my certified experience that got me the insurance in the first place.
Inexperienced roboteers will undoubtedly rely on the light working correctly and so will be caught out and get €œwalloped€ by their robot in the same way as the one who caused the incident in the first place.
The last thing we want is our insurance companies to start investigating the poor build quality of some of the robots that they are insuring at our events.
Normally all wiring that is part of something that they insure has to be to a recognised standard.
This applies whether it is low voltage car wiring, domestic wiring and so on, nothing is exempt.
The simplest of investigations by them will show how bad some of the robots are.
They will probably then insist that all robots that are at their insured events are subjected to much stricter technical inspections, probably by an independent agency.
The costs and hassles of such an €œMOT€ style test for all robots would decimate the numbers of them and the shows that they can go to.
May I suggest an alternative indicator.
The power link is placed in the back of the robot behind an obvious red plate.
It is attached to the plate by a strong pull cord which extends through the plate to a loop on the outside so it can be easily pulled out by hand.
This plate is retained by spring clip fasteners that allow it to be removed by a sharp tug on the loop.
The presence of the red plate means that the link is in place and the robot dangerous. No plate means no link, no power.
The plate and link removal action is very simple to test during the technical inspection, a lot easier than checking wiring standards.
It is simple and obvious in operation and requires no electrical power to indicate €œSafe€ or €œDangerous€Â
It is also just as visible in sunlight.
If it also allows access to the gas bottle tap that is even better, but that may not be practical in some robot designs.
If the robot gas bottle tap is the original fire extinguisher lever type, then it can also be held open by the €œsafety pin€ that is normally fitted to stop it being operated by accident.
This €œsafety pin€ could also be attached to the plate by a pull cord.
In the same action as removing the power link, the gas could be turned off as well in one operation.
Given sensible standardisation as to size and position of the plate, it would be easy to install in all robots.
It should satisfy the insurers and stop them from leaning on us for a more expensive solution.
They are only interested in how much our robots may cost them, they aren€™t bothered by how much their imposed safety measures may cost us.
I know this makes the link vulnerable to attack in battle.
We can overcome this disadvantage by outlawing €œlink attack€ during battles.
The link on the back of a robot is reasonable safe from attack by axes, but not by spinners. However,not many, if any shows can at the moment accommodate serious spinners.
I have a long handled pole with a €œboat hook€ type fitting on the end, as used to open and close the sun blinds over shop windows.
With it I could pull away the red plate by its eye or loop, and the attached links, of a suspect robot from a safe distance.
If the robot is lying such that its link plate is not visible it can be pulled over to a suitable position by the boathook on the pole.
These poles are not hard to get and could be standard equipment at all shows.
Pulling the link out with a long hooked pole would also amuse the audience and point out to them just how dangerous robots can be.
This is not yet to be taken as a requirement for robots attending my show but it needs serious consideration by all event organisers.
I will probably introduce it as a requirement for next years show.
What if the plate at the back of the robot takes a heavy hit, bends and locks in? Having a link/retaining cover will lead to more questions about how to build it strong enough and reliable enough to undo 100% of the time.
Lets face it, if someone cant fit a LED to come on when the link is pushed in, then they are going to have serious problems wiring up the rest of the electronics.
I honestly dont see what the problem is with a simple LED. Its a power indicator, not a your robot is safe indicator.
Richard C. Weir wrote:
quote:
What all events need is an officious, anal-retentive safety officer who has the presence of mind to yell LINKS OUT!!! as roboteers approach their machines.
Oh Richard how well you describe me !
Sadly I can tell you that the Dutch/Belgian roboteers would lynch me if I would insist again on safety issues during the shows. They just dont like someone loudly repeating the obvious over and over again, I agree wholeheartedly with you that it is needed, but the roboteers that heard me doing so only became very thoroughly and clompetely annoyed with me. My heart is warmed by a single soul agreeing with my views...
Roger, I do not agree with you fully. I happen to be one of those incomptents you have been describing (yes, I am a lady of many qualities) and for me the rule of having a light that indicates the robot is live makes sense. I see it as an indicator that will give me additional security, not as a fool-proof safety signal, but an indicator. If the light is on without the link in then my robot is in serious trouble. If it stays off with the link in then the light is in serious trouble and must be replaced immediately. If the light goes off during a fight and the link is still in then my robot is in serious trouble and liable to become a great hazard to all. See... it is an indicator.
As to your suggestion for removable links: sorry but I see it diffirently. I have seen many a removable link removing themselves because the fastners or tighteners werent good anymore, so they need to be fit in really tight. If you want to remove such a link with a hooked pole wont you be pulling the entire robot towards you because of the force you need ? You need a counterforce: Who ? What ? And I do absolutely NOT agree with using plates to hide or protect the link, the removal of such a plate means you need more time, especially when it is bent or lopsided. (Yes you roboteers who use plates, I DO NOT consider your system safe.)
As to using specific industrial-like equipment or parts: bulls leave huge piles of this stuff that I do not want to name but wanted to use here to describe my opinion of the above-written. Everybody who starts with a hobby requiring electronics will soon find out what is fit and what isnt and we all learn by example and failure. It is a long road but eventually we get there. Building guides for beginning roboteers already describe such parts, if people wont heed the advice then it is their problem. Do you wish to introduce industrial standards here ? Might as well drop the tools and start basket-weaving. Its less dangerous anyway. Half of the industrial stuff is even un-usable for us: too heavy, too clumsy, too specialised, too expensive and not really easy available for the private person. You do know that there is good stuff in the hobby stores. As every roboteer knows: just do your duty as an experienced roboteer and gently steer the newbies towards the proper stuff. Available affordable proper stuff.
If LEDs are so important, why dont use them on featherweights aswell? They coundnt be used on antweights for simple weight problems, but seeing as some featherweights are as powerful as middleweights, they should really be used in featherweights aswell. I agree with some of you that a LED should not be a main way of telling if the robot is active or not, but it would make a useful way of seeing if your power is on at the start of a battle.
One solution would be that someone makes a removable link that is much clearer than the standard red links, one that makes you clearly see if the link is in, or not
A robot is never really safe, as there could be fused together wires inside the robot, due to high currents. This would still make the robot active. There is NO way at all of truly telling if the power supply is on/off, so we should all look for common sense in most tricky robot scenes.
At the moment it is advised that they are used in feather weights, but at the next fra meeting, i will be insisting they are manditary for feather weights aswell.
Jonno
Agreed.
Elisabeth van Son, I did not suggested that we have to use industrial components but I have yet to find a €œhobby based€ link that will carry 100 plus amps and work safely as a disconnect device.
We must use components that the insurance companies accept as of suitable quality.
There is not much in a serious heavyweight that you can find in a hobby store.
Our shows are already large public events and must be insured, at least here in the UK.
If we EOs dont get our act together then the insurers will impose their rules on us.
As for not being able to pull the link out by hand, or a hand extended by a long pole when the robot is dangerous, then what are you using for a link?
If you read my post again you will see that the cover plate is removed by the same pulling action, it does not have to be removed first.
If you don€™t want a cover plate, then fine, leave the link uncovered with its rope loop hanging out.
I have used the Anderson (now called Rema) 160 amp welding connectors for my robots for some time.
I have fitted them with a rope loop and a swift pull on the rope removes them every time.
They do not fall out on their own ever, and I find them ideal for the job.
They are rated at 160 amps continuously and considerably more than that for several minutes.
They cost about £7 or 10 Euros each, retail, so can be afforded by all. They are easily available and many of the UK robots use them as standard. The 50 amp ones cost about £3 (5 Euros) each but will not carry the current required for a heavyweight robot.
It is these that I based my idea upon, but it would work just as well with the big fuse holders that some roboteers use.
Daniel, I have already covered your point about damaged links or cover plates by disallowing attacks on the link or its cover plate.
The link is our primary safety device, so it must be protected from attack.
Any robot that deliberately attacks the link would be disqualified, if it is damaged by accident then the fight is paused while it is inspected or fixed.
If we want to have fighting arenas in public then we must make concessions to safety and therefore protect our safety devices.
If we don€™t then we soon won€™t be able to get insurance cover and have to stop the events.
It looks extremely likely that RW on TV is on its last series so the future of robot fighting is in our hands at our public events.
Quote :
Daniel, I have already covered your point about damaged links or cover plates by disallowing attacks on the link or its cover plate.
That counts for virtually nothing. Even if not deliberate, it is inevitable that a link plate will take a hit. For many robots the link is on the back- presumably your rule would also rule out reversing into your opponent? This rule is both hard to enforce, will probably cause a lot of bother and arguements, and when it comes to a choice between that and an LED, I know which Id choose.
Ive been following this thread with great interest and i have come to a few conclusions (Please feel free to correct me). The LED idea sounds great and should be a requirement. I think the point that Roger is trying to make is that the LED may make some roboteers rely on it more than an actual visual check of the link. Babeth i think that every event should have someone like you, to yell and ensure that everything is done safely even in the heat of the moment.
if it is damaged by accident then the fight is paused while it is inspected or fixed.
How would a safe inspection be carried out in the middle of a fight if the link appears to have been damaged?
Gary, you would porobably have to call the AA, I would just get in and sort it.
Experience.
Quote: Any robot that deliberately attacks the link would be disqualified,
Although agreeing with most of Rogers veiws, this is a daft statement!
How the hell would you judge this?
Is a bots link at the back?..ours is, but is everybodys?..is there a rule outlawing links at the sides or even the front?
Do you have to go round all your opponents, pre match, finding out where their links are so you cant attack that bit?
No...fights happen...you go for it, and try to win. Granted you DO NOT annialate a disabled robot (at RW yes but not live events) but to judge on an opponenent deliberately attacking the link is impossible, in the heat of a fight..Your disk went straight in and ripped out my link I can hear some teams crying!....wish driving was that precise!!
Links flying out are usually bad design or bad luck!!!
Tom
The simple answer would be, if you pull out another robots link, you forfeit the fight. Roboteers will just have to be careful to immobilise their opponents without removing the link.
This may not be the correct solution, though. Theres a balance to be found between the full-on combat that (we think) the crowds want and the insurance problems.
Let me see, if I make my link realy loose, and it falls out realy easy.......
Rules on attacking links, the madness brink, i think.
Combat Robots are by their very nature extremely dangerous things, more so when you introduce the even more dangerous human factor.
Consider this, by putting lights on to indicate whether a Robot is live in the pits would assume that you have accepted that there will be cases when this could happen (very scary).
Simple rule : Only Event technicians touch links. (Realy big full stop) The rest falls into place.
All the events Ive been to have required me to test the failsafe in the pits, so Ive had to have the links in.
You cant say dont touch the link or you loose. Its impossible!
What happens if a robot is flying through the air (has been know to happen after a flip), lands on another robot (also been known to happen) and has its link door crushed/removed? Would two robots be disqualified for taking part in the link removal? Also I dont think the audience would appreciate the fight stopping every time the link is hit accidentally - it would slow everything down and destroy the flow of the fight.
Given that an LED is simple this is all getting very complex. You are now looking at special tools (a 10 meter boat hook), standardised coverplates and specific mounting points all in the place of a small LED.
TOO MUCH RED TAPE!
The LED is an indicator - not a safety device!
Its simple, accept the rules agreed between the EO and the insurers that allow the event to go ahead, go to the event and fight, OR stay at home and play with your robot in the garage.
How about I fit the LED, go to all of the Roaming Robots & FRA events and just miss your event instead? Sounds fair to me!
There is no chance on earth that I am re-working Mute to adhere to a stupid rule that involves bits of string and boat hooks just for one event. If the FRA tells me to fit a bit of string and use a boat hook then I will do it otherwise Ill stick with the LED.
You are arrogant thinking that you know more than the collective knowledge of everyone else on here just because you have been making robots slightly longer than everyone else. There are a lot of very intelligent people on here and you float around like you are better than them - trying to dictate rules! WAKE UP!
Rant over! Time for coffee!
P.S. I dont have a garage anyway.
Mute is a perfect example of the difficulty of imposing a plate in a fixed location rule. Low body height, most of which is covered in moving parts (main and rear flipper) so where would the be able to fit a standardised link plate? If it was on the side somewhere (just about the only possible place on a robot such as Mute or Razer) then side on attacks would be ruled out and the fights would be impossible, as youd have to go for the front, then if the robot turned broadside-on then the attacker would have to swing away etc etc.
Ive a lot of respect for Rogers knowledge and all the things he does as regards roboteering but I do think that a rule about a standard plate, a rope loop, and disallowing attacks on the link is unworkable.
-- Kev
Roger, I am very impressed with your insurers being so knowledgable about live robot combat event safety. I have had great difficulty finding insurers who have the first idea about robot safety issues and hence most of them tend to stay well away from it. Who are they and where do they get their technical advice from?
Based on all the suggested rule changes you have mentioned above will there be any changes to the RW rule set at Yoevil?
Andrew
This debate reflects two different approaches to safety: one approach relies on a safety culture which seeks to eliminate any action that could cause an accident, the other approach relies on devices to warn of dangers that could cause an accident. Both have their strengths and weakness. In my view a safety culture is by far the stronger approach and I think that the introduction of power lights, which will come to be relied on as an indication of whether a robot is dangerous or not, will actually weaken safety consciousness and over time increase the chances of an accident.
But at this point it does not matter what I think. I am installing a power indicator light on my robot because the FRA has ruled that one is required and I will not be able to continue competing if I dont. This will not change my approach to safety; I will continue to regard my machine as dangerous whenever the link is in, whether the light is on or not, and I will take the same attitude toward other peoples machines.
I hope we can end this debate over power lights and move on to a discussion of how to improve our safety culture.
At the risk of sullying my reputation by making my first post (on this forum) one which drags out the debate...
Regarding the dont attack the link problem. Ive always felt that the goals of having a link which can be easily and safely removed, and of making sure it doesnt fall out in a fight, are mutually exclusive.
Since events (outside Mentorns control, anyway)allow roboteers to declare when a robot is dead, what would EOs think of allowing a dead robot to be (briefly) inspected, and allowing it to continue fighting if the only thing wrong is that the link is out? (Immediately, I mean - an obligatory rematch would just get tedious).
Advantage: possibly slightly fairer results (who hasnt felt sorry for a robot disabled by a lucky hit on the link?)
Disadvantages: might mean trying to insert a link into a damaged robot without proper inspection (although if links are inserted from outside the arena this might not be so bad). Also unworkable for battles between more than two robots.
Im still only a proto-roboteer, but it strikes me that making a link safe and visible would be a lot easier if having it pulled out by a lucky hit didnt mean the loss of a fight. Maybe a policy of three falls and youre out if someone has a link prone to damage, no as not to hold up the event too much?
FWIW I approve of the LED (it would also look cool), but Im under no delusions that a dull robot is a safe robot. Id have thought that with a bit of contrasting paint around it (small black circle or something) thered be no problem seeing a modern high-brightness LED in reasonable daylight.
My original thoughts on the subject were to have a failsafe radio channel on the link (if theres a signal the robots live), but thats both more expensive and even less reliable than the LED; it would allow hidden links and a better range on one indication that the robot is live, though.
I know from experience that roboteers do tend to grow careless from the moment when they must put their robot into the arena and get on with the fight. The Newark Incident was a perfect example (me standing 2-3 meters behind the person who got the wallop so I had a GOOD view) and no matter how seasoned a veteran may be they all fall for it sooner or later. You know your robot, you trust it, big problem in my point of view.
The problem is that on Dutch live events when I shout LINK or STAND BACK FROM THE ARENA roboteers tend to regard me with annoyance and often ridicule me for it. They even demand that I stop doing it so I dont do it anymore. They call me nitpicker and busybody but I always see them making the same mistakes regarding personal safety over and over again and that angers me. You do need a person who is not affected by the fight fever, keeps a cool head, watches what people are doing and shouts when it is necessary. If you feel it breaks the mood I dont care, I would rather break the mood than see a broken body.
Apart from this... When I say hobby shop I do not only mean shops for RC hobbyists, but also car-tuning shops, Do-It-Yourself shops and other electra-oriented shops. There is good and affordable wiring/connections available if you broaden your range of shops to visit.
As for the right materials... Isnt there a low pressure ram on high pressure in WBC ?
Andrew, my insurers are not specifically knowledgeable on live robot event safety.
They have seen proof of my work experience and qualifications that go with that work.
They are satisfied that I have the technical and safety knowledge to manage the event safely.
Send me an email; I will give you their details.
The only rule I have suggested changing is that the safety links are altered so they are removable, in an emergency, using a 10 foot long pole with a hook on the end, and the gas turned off by the same action.
I will not insist on that this year but will next.
I would like to see roboteers at this year€™s event using their initiative to suitably adapt their links.
Power ON warning lights may be fitted or not, as you wish.
I will publish a set of rules ASAP.
Daniel, dont worry, you will get over it.
With your disparaging attitude you would not have made it onto one of my bomb disposal or mine clearance teams. Several like you tried, but we rejected them.
You should give some thought to the possibility that some people do know what they are doing, even if you don€™t know that.
For reference
This is the Fighting Robot Association Roboteer Forum, run by roboteers for roboteers. Please keep chat clean and non-offensive. Persistent offenders will be barred.
Regards
FRA forum admin team
Elisabeth,
WBCs ram is hydraulically tested to 150 bar, more than twice its working pressure.
My God -
The only rule I have suggested changing is that the safety links are altered so they are removable, in an emergency, using a 10 foot long pole with a hook on the end, and the gas turned off by the same action.
I will not insist on that this year but will next.
Any robot that deliberately attacks the link would be disqualified,
Do hope your having a laugh.
The safety requirements Roobts have at the moment are good enough. The LED light addition is to help the roobteer and others know if the robot is alive or not when doing anything. A standard lighting rule should be made for the LED lights. A certain light for when the roobt is alive, or just RX on or in failsafe mode.
You start making and deactivating robots using a 10foot pole - then the hobby turns into who has the best balance skills to pull their link out.
Tis getting a bit silly now. How about we make RC ejection links. Press a button and your link auto pops out? Anyone for this rule?
Mr Stu
Sounds good to me now Ive ordered my brand spanking new 6 channel system :proud::proud:
Ahem. Sorry.
-- Kev
I was just thinking about that Stu. Ive got some small cylinders which could do the job - just have to be careful they cant fire when youre inserting or removing the link manually.
Roger, get over what??? And please dont pretend that you know me because you dont.
Exactly what are you going on about with regards to bomb disposal? I thought we were talking about Robots, safety issues and 10ft poles...