Rule 6.3 The Link

the RAF doesnt provide too much for us, its actually BAE systems that provide us with alot on the mechanical side along with other sponsers whove helped us out with numourous things such as batteries etc (o and stu we did have to buy the 2 vantecs!).

the large outer ring was machined for us by BAE out of a solid 1 ton block of steel and they made our titanium cone for us........it really does help if u know the right people!

to start with Tom the ATC were really behind us etc and we had a publicity person that took pics etc at extreme 1. however this year the ATC basically ignored the fact that we had got in etc, someone lost their job over that one i believe. During filming we actually stay in the ATC hut just to the side of the main gates to RAF Newton. This is because we always bring along a group of supporters (this year called the scream team, im sure alot of u know what i mean)

Because of robot wars, i have met THE top officers in both the ATC and the RAF and i believe that the queen will know of our escapades and may be watching in February as our officer in charge of the robot wars project, Mr bennet was asked to right 250 words which will be included in the yearly report about the RAF to the queen. Not so sure thats a good thing! :)

Arise sir Gary :)

Gary - if you think Liz will be watching, could you get her to write a quick letter to the British Broadcasting Corporation asking why they didnt see one of the RAFs battles as important enough to screen? :)

Hi
when I insert my removable link into my robot the main batteries operate a relay which switches on the power to the receiver. I do have a seperate switch for the receiver but that can only switch it on and off if the link isnt in. the switch is there in case the main battery voltage drops below the level required to keep the relay on so the robot remains in control. does this mean my robot would not pass the safty checks?
I cannot see the reason behind having a seperate switch to remove power from the receiver. The removable link is there to remove power from the weapons and drive so whats the point? Also if you remove power from the receiver you almost certainly remove power from any fail safe devices which are likely powered from the receiver.

so is this a sensible rule?

if its an issue of one switch on a safety system... why not?

muppet

if you remove power from the receiver you almost certainly remove power from any fail safe devices which are likely powered from the receiver

also we already have a removable link. A switch for the receiver is just a distraction and an extra vulnerability.

So I repeat what is the point?

Simon

If you remove power from the receiver then your robot should failsafe, if it doesnt then you shouldnt pass tech check.
The switch is there so as the tech check staff can easily check this.
The reason they need to check this is that if your receiver looses power whilst in combat/loading/tech check they need to know the robot will behave itself.

Hope that answers the question.

Sam
FRA Safety Executive

Even if the more sensible way is to power down the Tx.... But thats a whole debate in itself.

Interesting... Our controllers also power the Rx, so ATM we just have the link switching everything on. I can certainly add a separate switch inline with the DC feed if its a requirement for testing though.

John, a seperate power switch for the radio is not a mandatory requirement. As long as you have a way of removing all power from your robot via your link its fine. (See rules 4.10 and 6.4 in the guidelines).

Powering your RX through the speed controllers (As we do in Storm II) is perfectly acceptable.

Ed
http://www.teamstorm.comhttp://www.teamstorm.com