FRA urgent announcement

Mario to answer your question from how I see things. If an event organiser were to ignore guidelines then it could be taken that either the event organiser or the roboteer who caused an accident could be liable for damages. Assuming that they neglected to inform the insurance comapny of what they were doing.


At last a sensible and direct answer. Thanks Ed.

Legaly seen
The FRA can advice as much as it want. Nobody is mandated to listen or obey.

For events,

If an idiot organizes an event doesnt know what hes doing and gets an insurance compagny to insure his event ,then he is insured.
Even if he gets 2 spinners to fight in the crowd...

But if a knowledgable person organizes a perfect event, and even the tiniest bit goes wrong then hes not insured and will lose any lawsuit leveled against him.

Careful now Mario. That was my point last night and I think James. It would be a shame for this to end the sport and cause conflicts.
post 1070 of unpayed member

RE Ed (see archive): So this tether thing is only if my weapon clashes with a spinner. But if there arnt any spinners I wont need the tether.
Also I am having touble trying to come up with a way to make a tether that could survive if the axe is damaged by a spinner. Anything the rips the axe from the robot will more then likely rip the tether off too. I have a one peice blade that I some times use for an axe, which is directly attached to the axial. The only way to rip it out of the robot is to remove half the robot with it. A tether in this case seems useless, just another reason to add weight to a robot.
I am more likely to have my armor and wheels ripped off by a spinner, should I be tethering them aswell?
I understand some people might be only concerned with an axe on spinner clash, but dont we a) design for that so of impact, I do which is why I have the one peice blade, and b) youve just banned spinners, so why hinder axes as well?

How about a simple solution. We make is compulsery that spinners have to tether their teeth.

Let me just say that the new guidlines havent been hastley put together. As andy said they have been worked on ever scince the UK Champs.

The thing is its not just a little risky to run events to the old standard, but highly risky to the point we are very lucky somebody hasnt got seriously hurt or killed. Thats fact.
These new guildlines are extremely important and all agreed, they needed to be in place immediately

Daniel - Im not sure about having a tether if the axe is made from a single peice so its probably best to e-mail the FRA about that. But when there is a seperate axe head it is a possibility the the head can come off and be thrown toward the roof.

Mario, if an idiot organises an event then the chances of any or us roboteers would attend would be slim. I will only fight if I think that the arena and safety is good enough to contain my robot.

Dainel, the tether rule is there to comply with the rule you must have a tether of some kind. If you have a one piece shaft and head then I would assume that the shaft/head must be tethered to the robot chassis. This would satisfy the rule to my standards. If the rule is there you build to it, it stops arguments such as this happening at events by one competitor saying oh he hasnt got a tether for example.
As for your last statement, at the last event an tooth was ripped off but it was the bar that failed not the tooth itself so a tether wouldnt have had any effect.
THz tether is very good, if the head or shaft breaks then it is tethered at any point. I am sure that at that point John would stop firing the axe as it is more likely to damage his machine.
Sorry got carried away, nuff said.

James C I agree with your last post entirely.

its ok if you dont run a spinner eh?

Ed, I guess you would be surprised who will fight what machine in a reasonable safe spot without an audience.
Nobody wants to risk innocents

If the FRA rules make it impossible for organisers to have an arena in a reasonable way, I guess it will make those organizers go seperate without the Approved by the FRA quality mark.

I dont like a split in our small group, after all were only with a few 100 over the whole world. But I see it happen.
Oh, it happened in the past already.

And the only thing the FRA can do on that is ban or ignore those organizers on this forum.


As Im not an organizer, nor member of any know organisation concerned with robot wars (No Im not a DRG member either) Im not risking much.

*************************************************
Daniel, the tether rule is not that difficult nor effective. No dimensions nor anchor points are mandated. A tether on your axe could be a badstop chain connected to a self tapping screw on a 3mm polycarb plate.

Also, if I recall correctly, it is a safety device, and not counted into the weight of the robot. So, if your drive/chassis is strong enough, why not using a anchor chain of 5 kg per link? Your 13.6kg machine with 50kg of safety device... :) talk about grip and pushing capability then.

Are the tethers for flippers included in the weight ?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Lets try to recapitulate so far:

- The FRA has implemented a measure with immediate effect that has caused people to balk because it leaves organisers little time to upgrade their arenas for spinners, effectively banning spinners from events in the next few months (probably even the year).

- People are wondering whether the vote was really unanimous and it turned out some present had some reservations. It was however decided the matter was too important to let it drag on any longer and thus the measure was set into place. Note that we have been discussing arena safety seriously since the last UK Championships, so this must not really have come as a total surprise to all. And face it, safety is still our major concern.

- There has been some communication about the issue, of which I can glean ***and I stress here that this is my personal opinion, not that of any organiser nor any other member nor any other non-member*** that the FRA seems to flounder around a bit regarding this issue: years of laissez-faire and then suddenly a stringent ruling of which we still await the technical data (research, comparative tests, advice of the industry, risk assessments...) in order to justify the ruling. In other words I expect a bit more professionalism. If not, then the FRA is what I always thought it was, and to my opinion actually should be: an advisory organ that provides the people and space to develop safety measures for our sport which the organisers can then adopt, to investigate and provide a protection against lawsuits from people who might see it as a way to get filthy rich quick, and to develop a comprehensive public relations medium for non-roboteers to contact. If we really want a regulatory organ with enforcing powers then I suggest new improved procedures for the elections, stringent regulation regarding the committee members (like having no robots in combat, which I believe is utmost important in order to avoid conflict of interest) and people who are bl**dy prepared to hop in and do their part instead of moaning about the current committee who is only in place because nobody else wanted to.


Post number 903 from a non-member who used to be a member from the beginning but isnt anymore due to living too far away in order to pay her dues on a regular basis, and everytime she was in a position to pay (like being in the country) couldnt find someone to pay to.

i have a point that id like to make, and before I make it I would like to point out that it is aimed at the person/people who conducted the research that current standards are based on. The fact that there persons are also someone i have a history of arguing with is irrelevant, and I would hope that my comments are read impartially before i get hate mail again.

in testing (i am assuming a full size sheet of 10mm polycarbonate was hung from an existing arena and not just stuck in a vice or layed on a driveway) it was found that only 10mm of material was sufficient to safely contain simulated debris from a featherweight fight.

please define fhe following.

the simulated debris, its size, shape, speed, firing method, speed measurement technique, distance from target, number of testes conducted, effects on target, acceptable results to target, unacceptable results to target, target certificates, target type, make, age and uv rating........ shall i go on?

also, am i to infer, that as 10mm is minimum thickness for the walls, and 5mm for the roof, that if I ask for the distance from arena floor to robochallenge roof, I can run 5mm screens at this distance from the arena sidewall? in which case

for 5mm polycarbonate at a distance of (x=robochallenge floor to roof height)
please define fhe following.

the simulated debris, its size, shape, speed, firing method, speed measurement technique, distance from target, number of testes conducted, effects on target, acceptable results to target, unacceptable results to target, target certificates, target type, make, age and uv rating........ shall i go on?

In short, I will accept these findings as accurate and not guessworks on the condition that they were carried in a manner that is independantly repeatable, and accurate.

My complaint is not that the new guidelines are being introduced so quickly, I applaud the FRA dilligence on closing a geninely dangerous practice. My complaint is that the new standards to solve the issue of a fabric roof, do more than that. They also increase wall thickness, and to my knowledge there has NEVER been an issue of 6mm polycarbonate not containing featherweight spinners. Please correct me if debris has ever penetrated a screen?

I will conduct my own tests as tho whether my arena is safely screened, and make my results public when I do. If they do not meet FRA minimum guidelines, but are tested as sufficient, where would the FRA stand?

By the way, if there is a grade 2 and grade 2F, does that mean the screens on a grade 2 are thickers, due to the heavyweights having more energy in spinners, and so all this testing must begin again, or is 10mm a guess, so its too much for feathers and too little for heavies, making it effectivly useless.

I hope my point has come across without sounding biased. I just want detailed descriptions of exatly how tests were conducted and documented results. If we are going to effectivle ban all spinners from all but 1 arena, at least lets do it fo the right reasons.

and yes, I do still intend to run spinners safely, unless my own, independant tests prove otherwise.