FRA Rules

The place to post any questions or suggestions you may have about the current FRA build rules and guidelines held here:

http://www.fightingrobots.co.uk/rules.htmhttp://www.fightingrobots.co.uk/rules.htm

Please feel free to comment, were always looking for new views in order that these rules can continue to develop.

FRA Forum Admin
FRA Safety committee

That link seems to not work, should it be

http://www.fightingrobots.co.uk/buildrules.htmhttp://www.fightingrobots.co.uk/buildrules.htm

perhaps?

Well done Rich..

Doh!

Sam
http://www.shredderteam.comhttp://www.shredderteam.com
http://www.robotcrusade.comhttp://www.robotcrusade.com

Just been reading them and noticed a slight issue -

6.4 All [non-antweight] robots must be fitted with on-off switches that operate both radio receiver and drive/weapon circuits...

This differs from the Robot Wars wording which says on-off switches or removeable links.

Does this mean we have to fit a switch capable of carrying the all the power required for the robot, in addition to the link(s)? This could be quite a large switch on some robots.

I would aggree with the switch for the reciever, but switched for weapons could get a little silly.

Everybodys link is one big on / off switch surely and should be sufficient.

Must be wrong???
JOnno
http://www.roamingrobots.co.ukwww.roamingrobots.co.uk

Isnt this supposed to be an on-off switch on the transmitter ? We try to incorporate one on every robot we work with, just for safety.

Id think it only says that the main power AND the auxilliary power (if there is a second battery for e.g. the reciever) must both be switcheable.
This is also in the RW rules.

Holger, if I read you right you are saying that main power must be switchable? Unless you count the link, I have never seen a physical switch for the drive or weapons power on a robot, and I passed the tech check at series 7 without one.

Or are you saying that switching off receiver power must immoblise the robot? That is in both sets of rules, but it wouldnt say such a situation counts as a switch for the main power.

Jim, I am taking the removeable link as a switch, which it is in electrical terms.
So normally, the RL will cut the main supply (drive and weapon), the aux switch cuts the aux supply (if you use one and whatever you feed with it).
In our robot we use a kind of remote switch: If the main power is switched off (by pulling the RL), the small battery (for the receiver and, in our case, the pneumatic valves) is shut down electronically. You of course could as well use a relay for that. This avoids the switch in addition to the RL.

Hmm...
After having a look at the rules 6.3. and 6.4. sound a bit confusing to me:

6.3.
All [...] Robots must
incorporate a way of removing all power to weapons and drive systems (systems that could cause
potential human bodily injury) that can be activated easily without...

6.4.
All [...] Robots must be
fitted with on-off switches that operate both radio receiver and drive/weapon circuits - in practice totally removing all power from the Robot.

6.3. says that only drive and weapon system power needs to be switched, whereas 6.4. states that everything needs to be powered down. Or does that mean that only drive and weapon need to have that easily-option...?

The removeable link is a switch, yes, but it would not be normal (in my experience) to describe it as one. If the rules do mean to count a removeable link as a switch, I think that should be explicit in the rules.

It should be for the receiver, receiver switched off should put you in failsafe status anyway.. thus effectively removing all power from weapons and drive.

Ill edit that at some point.. it obviously got passed our proof reads.

Thanks for the feedback

Sam
http://www.shredderteam.comhttp://www.shredderteam.com
http://www.robotcrusade.comhttp://www.robotcrusade.com

Does the FRA allow cluster robots? I couldt see any rules about them.

I think that the rules read well, and are sensible. We should be looking every year for convergence between these rules and the RW rules. The alternative is divergence, and the risk that mutually exclusive rules could develop. Perhaps there could be a joint working party between Mentorn and the FRA?

My reading of the rules was that both power and receiver on-off switches were needed, and both have been provided (as well as a removable link on the power circuit). I know that others havent done this. Perhaps the rules do need more clarification on this point.

I would like to know whether there will be a rule about tethers for moving components (flippers, axes and spinners). If so, what will it say?

Jeremy

I think a set rules are needed for Gameplay. I know most people know the general rules for the actual fighting but some points are unclear.
We were involved with an incident at sheffield. In the final, Big Nipper and Mute both went into the pit, and we were the only ones left. We went into our victory spin and the annoucer said we had won, but then BN got flipped out of the pit by mute, the fight then carried on. We ended up being pitted (unable to srimech due to not enough gas, some were waisted on the victory spin). But nobody was sure if it should of carried on or not due to there being no written rule about it.
The thing that made it more difficult to decide was the fact that mute flipped them out of the pit, and that they didnt get out by just by themsleves.
Us or Big Nipper still dont know what the official out come was, they were given the decision.
Ill make it clear, that im not moaning, or holding anything aginst BN, theyre great guys and have a great robot. Ill be chearing for them tonight on RW (even though I know the outcome!). I just would like to see a set of official Bout rules to make it clear when a robot is out or not.
I think a re-match is needed :)

Mark

Yes clusterbots are allowed.

Possibly we need to add the joined at match start rule, but other than that theres nothing specific to them that needs adding.

Jeremy

The rules were and are continuing to be developed with both RW compatibility and American rules compatibility in mind.
We didnt however feel it was necessary to include some of the more restrictive RW rules as they dont actually conform to well to European requirements and are in our opinion stopping development paths needlessly.
We would be more than happy to work with RW with regards to developing the rule sets together.

The tethering rule is being developed as we speak, but weve decided that in order to provide a guideline that is safe, makes sense to competitors and is relatively easy to follow, we need to make sure its considered and tested properly before release.
I can tell you that ALL axe weapons are going to be required to include a tether and that single failure point flippers are likely to require them too.

Spinners are not currently included within this ruling as theyre unable to run outside class 2 arenas anyway.

If youd like more information on the tethering guideline, please contact Paul Cooper, or Mike Lambert who are currently working on it together. You can find their contact details on the front page of the FRA site.

My reading of the rules was that both power and receiver on-off switches were needed

Currently a switch is not required for the power, but is required for the receiver.
If the receiver is switched off the robot must failsafe.
Were aware that there was some confusion in the wording of issue 1 of the rules, and are currently working on version 1.2 where this issue has been solved.

Hope that helps and thanks for the feedback. Keep it coming!

Regards
Samuel Jones
FRA Safety executive

Alan,

Yes it was a little confusing, and this incident has happened before, with robots getting them selves out of the pit both by themselves and by means of another robot, however it isnt until the situation occurs in a competition where results are critical that it becomes a problem.


As far as I€™m aware, and this is the rule we worked to, and would hope to work to in the future.

A robot will not be deemed out of a fight until it has been physically immobile for 30 seconds.

Therefore, wedged against a side wall or in the pit, if you manage to break free, by yourself, or with help, you will not be deemed immobile as long as it€™s within the 30 seconds.

Hope this clarifies things for now.

There will be a notice at Witw to let everybody know for the future.

Jonno

Maybe someone counting down? The judges with stop watches maybe?

Stu

I lost to Bigger Brother at Newark in a 10 second cound down and got free from the side after 15 seconds. I always thought you worked to 10 seconds in a 3 minute fight.

I agree with Jeremys posting that we should be looking for convergence in the rule sets. Currently there are just two sets of rules in the Uk for robots, the RW rules and the FRA rules. It is not difficult to build a robot that qualifies under both sets of rules but it is possible to build one that will qualify under one set and not under the other.
Someone should do a description of the rule differences. Some important ones that I have noticed:

The following are allowed under the FRA rules but not under the RW rules

-Gas bottles other than the 3 named types permitted by RW

-Robots without an offensive weapon (rambots)

-High speed discs (RW has indicated that they will ban discs over 1,500 rpm)

The FRA rules also provide for the use of undefined high voltages over 36 volts, with the organisers permission. [Id guess this is an oversight and an upper limit will be set.]

Has anyone noticed other big differences in the rules?

John
Terror Turtle/Steel Sandwich

While on the subject on maximum voltage, I for one think 60V is approuching the very dangerous voltages for people that are not well versed in electronics.

I think 36V to 48V should be more than adequate for fighting robots, what do you think?

Bye,
Leo

If the receiver is switched off the robot must failsafe

This makes the built-in failsafes of PCM-receivers useless. You will have to add external failsfes nevertheless.

Holger, I dont agree. 4QDs that we uses will stop if the rx power is lost as the speed input is then zero. What can happen first is a sudden direction change when the direction power is lost before the decel ramps return the speed to zero. In anycase we have failsafes after the rx just in case. What is worrying is that if the failsafes in the PCM are not active (as has happened to ours on more than one occation under the tech check) then it will stay at the last set speed.

In your case, the 4QD interface will provide the external failsafe function. Not too much of a problem for the drive system, as many speed controllers do. It is more a problem with the weapon system. where the controllers normally arent that intelligent.

You are right, if the PCM failsafes get stuck, an external solution wont help you. Id say: Buy a good radio system :D. We luckily never had that problem with our JR X-388s.

Leo,

I agree with you - an upper limit of 48 volts should be plenty. The RW limit of 60 can probably be interpreted as 48 in practice since they specify that the 60 volt limit applies to a freshly charged battery pack which means that a series string of 5 12 volt batteries would go well over it. Im not aware of anyone using voltages higher than 48. In fact, I dont think Ive yet seen a 48 volt robot.

John
Terror Turtle/Steel Sandwich

I have a question on fail the safe lighting.
4.3 in addition to the main power light showing the main power is activated. It should also indicate if the robot is in failsafe, off or zero position.
What should the light do?
Should it flash on and off?
Change colour?
Or would a second light next to it be acceptable? (This would be a lot easier than the other two options and just as clear).

Where can I find a copy of the official rules? I need to check the rules concerning Carbide teeth on discs.

I presume http://www.fightingrobots.co.uk/rules.htmhttp://www.fightingrobots.co.uk/rules.htm is current?

--
Fluppet

Yep.

Mr Stu

Can anyone find a rule that will stop me from putting tungsten carbide teeth on a spinning disc?

Joe,
Im looking into this one for both us!
Even if on the face of it the FRA rules dont exatly say you cant I think we may have a problem getting it passed certain event organisers! (Jonno take note, we demand the right to use tungsten carbide!!:))

Geoff.

yea and I wanna go to 48v like I had at robot wars

makes me wee beasty go a tad like the clappers

Ive got a mate who will testify Tanto on 48v has no trouble with obliterating curbs
Ive even got a certificate that says I work safely with forklifts which were 48v so Im even approved
now let us run 48v

please :) pretty please with sugar on top

im listening... with ear defenders on !!!! :)

jonno

JT, the arguement will no doubt be along the lines of.... when that tooth flies off (which it will sometime) at the speeds the disc runs, yu have a bullet sized piece of tungsten carbide travelling at bullet speeds (similar to subsonic 9mm armour piercing) you will need 10mm polycarb to say this is conatinable. who has that? not many of us.

Craig..... I think 60v was always a mistake, so Id say no to 48v, but thats cause I dont want 48v myself so nobody else should :P
just kiddn, I see no probs with it personally.

JB

What were the origonal FRA rules based on? Did you use the Mentorn rules, the American rules or some other place?

The original RW rules were used but where ever possible they were relaxed. ie bottle sizes. RW rules were good but designed for arena use. We have to have a rule set that hopefully allows safe build, testing and opperating of potentially very dangerous equipment.

Mike.

Thanks for that Mike.

It has been put to me that the FRA has dishonestly used the RFL Extendable Tech Regs without giving credit to the RFL. (Not my words)

The people on this forum have been helpful to me and, if someone is speaking badly about you without cause, I would like to see it sorted out.

The evidence is, in short, that the RFL and FRA rules are extremely similar and the RFL published theirs first. How would you respond to this?

Please note. I am not trying to put anyone down. I simply want to stop any unfounded rumors. Thank you.

This is not the FRA response - this is mine and is based upon the claim as you have presented it here and/or has been presented to you.

In short, there is nothing illegal in each organisation having the same safety standards and rules. Just because the rules are extremely similar no evidence of plagiarism has been presented which could be contestable in a court of law.

Thanks Karoline. I dont know of anyone thinking of court action. I would just like to bring a rumor out into the open and have it sorted out.

I have been reading the Robot Wars website and the FRA web site for many years and have come to respect you guys (in the gender nonspecific use of the word guys). I dont want anyone to unjustifiably speak ill of you.