Rule 6.3 The Link

This is indeed a complex issue because of the variety of control systems employed on our bots. I would argue that all arenas running heavyweights must be able to cope with a runaway bot (the same could not be said just 2 short years ago!). However, I believe we must not only consider what happens in combat but also at home and during testing. The FRA as a competent body should at the very least make this an advisory rule for now while further research is made.

I for one feel the FRA should be congratulated on trying to make our sport as safe as practicable even if it has not fully understood the impact on existing bots of rule changes like this.

Paul

so are you basiclly saying that all Rxs must have a power switch, no matter how they are powered? if you run off a BEC why would you want the main power on but the Rx off?

Im not saying that, I agree that it makes sense that a robot should come to a halt if it loses receiver supply. Whether it should be part of a tech check is questionable as long as the arena is of suitable class. Appropriate design should infer the correct functionality. This is a personal view I should add

Paul

Alan, if I have been reading this correctly the switch on the rx is there to test the failsafe system so the roboteer can prove during tech. check that a power loss to the rx will fail safe. Any means of powering the rx - BEC, battery, elbow-grease - can come unplugged, leaving the main power live but the rx dead.

In an arena it will make no difference, these days, but during testing at home and possibly during power-up something like this could prevent accidents. Of course, Im afraid many roboteers will only think about their failsafe system the day before they are due to get tech. checked...

Would it be satasfactory if my pneumatic weapon was stuck in the closed position (it is locked in a simular way to DanTomKia and Bigger Brother).

At the moment my robot is set to bring the flipper down if failsafe pops in (due to the fact that if someone is in there and i turn on failsafe i dont want the flipper to fly up and hit someone). But it is failsafed by a FS-1 and will stay in the last position if I lose battery power. Is this legal? If not how can i get around this?

Regards
Ian

sorry paul it wasnt aimed at you, i agree with you. Ian i think as long as your flipper remains in one posistion your ok, i think it just to stop your flipper going mad!

Richard - Im a bit wary of the assertion that a modern arena should be able to contain any rogue robots.

Gary may only have been able to damage a side panel in Mentorns arena, not the frame supporting it, but that might not stop a low profile spinner which has decided to stick in drive from being able to get through. 8645T was making a credible attempt to burrow under the arena wall in Debenham. To drive through deliberately would require effort, but its still something which could happen if a robot gets stuck in drive.

If thats not likely enough, theres always the old chestnut of a flipper throwing a spinner into the wall. If Atomic had got T2 over the wall and the impact had caused T2 to do what happened to Behemoth after Mute hit it, bad things could have happened - Makrolon shrapnel at least, and possibly a completely rogue machine.

A modern arena should take any single hit thrown at it (with the possible exception of a big spinner thrown at the outer wall) with an acceptable level of safety, but extending that to an arbitrary number of hits is asking a lot.

It would be very unfortunate for circumstances to combine to endanger the crowd, but the first time it happens (ignoring the idiots running without a screen wherever it was in the US) would be catastrophic for the sport. This is always going to be a somewhat dangerous sport, especially for the roboteers, but lets not take it for granted that the arena will contain everything?

--
Fluppet

Um. Yes, good points there Andrew.

Drags a big spanner over to the works and gets ready to throw it in.

Just been going through the forum to see where I stand with the FRA regards my weapon control for my Hydraulic Jaw. At the moment, and how we ran it in Series 7, is by the good old fashion way of a servo and Micro switches controlling relays to operate the weapon. A FS1 failsafe was used in between the servo and receiver. (fine for the old Mentorn way)
However, reading this thread, and looking at the FRA rules again, I had failed to full appreciate that the robot must failsafe not only with loss of signal, but also loss of power to the receiver. To me this means that No servo/micro switch set up can be used to control weapons or drive systems as servos depend entirely on power to work.

Plus on my understanding, won€™t this also rule out failsafes like the FS1?

However, what grabbed my attention more, and got me questioning my whole system was something Paul mentioned,
Quote,

€˜Sam, this requirement for the robot to place your robot in failsafe status when the Rx is off is a departure form the Mentorn rules. This will in effect mean that 4QD DCI boards and some PCM only systems no longer meet the FRA rules.€™

So some built in failsafes may also not operate with loss of power?
Help!
What can you do to systems that don€™t failsafe on loss of Rx power so they do?
Do the Team Delta RC Switches failsafe with loss of power for example?

You can power the servos and failsafes from a separate power supply to the receiver. All thats required for them to function is common ground and signal wires with the receiver. Of course, if you lose power to the servos then your microswitches will stay in the same position forever.

I dont think powering the servos from a separate power source will increase safety, because its equally likely that the servos power will be cut as it is likely that the receivers power will be cut - but it would satisfy the failsafe on loss of RX power rule.