2013 Build Rules and Competition Regulations

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Team Invade

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.

---

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 psychostorm

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

---

There is no rule about 30 second no-attack immobilisation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kane

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.

---

Cheers Kane!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kane

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.

---

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.
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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wikipedia

The position of a single car (engine) moving along a track has one degree of freedom, because the position of the car is defined by the distance along the track. A train of rigid cars connected by hinges to an engine still has only one degree of freedom because the positions of the cars behind the engine are constrained by the shape of the track.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrees...om_(mechanics)

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kane

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychostorm

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

---

There is no rule about 30 second no-attack immobilisation

---

It's not a very good description of it. I'm trying to avoid getting involved in the 10/30 second pit furore.

Where is this rule in the 2013 regulations?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Competition Regulations 2012 page 4

Any robot that remains stationary for more than 30 seconds without being contact with another robot will be deemed to have been knocked out.

---

That's the old rules on immobilisation. They now read:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Competition Regulations 2012

Immobilisation
Any robot that is unable to move or demonstrate control may be counted out by the judges. This may be due to mechanical failure, entanglement with the arena or arena hazards, such as the pit. When the judges
identify a robot that is classed as immobile, a 10 second countdown will begin. During this time should the
robot free themselves the countdown will be stopped. Robots unable to move after the countdown reaches
zero are knocked out and must not intentionally interfere in the fight. Robots in the pit at the end of the fight shall be deemed knocked out.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kane

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Team Invade

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.