FRA reps meeting (on the 13th Oct 207)

Hi,

There is an FRA reps meeting on the 13th of October (next Saturday) and there will be a lot on the agenda. Some of the things on the agenda will need to be voted on and I think that the FRA members in my area (South Wales and West) should be allowed top read the agenda and let me know which way they would like me to vote. Because of this, I have put a copy of the agenda on the robotforum website. Any members can read the attachments. Members in my area, can you please have a read and let me know any comments/votes/any other business which you would like me to bring up before Thursday (the 11th Oct) so I can air your views on your behalf?


Regards,

Dave

Link to AGM minutes removed at the request of the FRA executive. This is an un-authorised release of a document that has not yet been approved by the governing body as being true and accurate report of the meeting.
Once it has been approved, it will be made publicly available on the FRA website.

Fighting Robot Association.

(Message edited by scorpion on October 08, 2007)

Thats how it should work. I echo what Dave has said it goes for everyone, pass on any comments to your regional rep.

Dave,

Thank you for putting these online.

I just heard it might be that our rep is not going. Who can I turn to as substitute?

I think a mistake was made, it was Jeroen that wanted to enter the A123 trials for feathers, and has asked so during the AGM.

Whos my rep (Oxfrodshire)

Hi Craig,

I believe Oxfordshire is covered by the South Midlands area which is the area I cover.

Contact details are on the http://www.fightingrobots.co.uk/regionalmap.htmregional

Thanks!

A message from a GRA member: Allowing 48V instead of 36V max is against the law in Germany. Working with higer voltages than 36V means you need to be a qualified and certified electrician.

I even think that is an European guideline.
The main reason why mentor chose 36V as limit must be somewere.

there will be alot of un happy people if the weight for heavys goes to 100kg with gas?

I agree John.

To name 2
Tough As nails
Hammerhead III

On the other side. 2% isnt a great disturbance.

Problem is, Since the days these 2 machines were build. Series 7 under the Mentorn rules (what kept about the same for 6 years, only my plan to use CO2 tanks as main chassis and armor parts changed the CO2 storage tank rules), the FRA only has limited the Pneumatics.... And gave the advantage to the High £ hydraulics.

Hi,
Apologies for releasing the AGM minutes before they were officially released (I didnt know they were only draft). I have not removed the agenda from the robotforum because I believe the members should be able to see what is being discussed in the meetings before the meetings happen. I have moved it to the backroom though. Really, they should be on the announcements section of this website. How else can the members have a say in things if they dont know what is being discussed? Anyway, regarding the AGM minutes, matter closed as far as im concerned.

Dave

they really really dont want to make the new rule 100 with gas. i will probably give up. i am making thor into pneumatic again and i am on the limit with weight. take away 2kg from me and i will probably just give up. why cant it just be left alone.

a word from shane swan saying he is not happy either. just leave us alone to play robots instead of making up stupid rules.

Actually, its only some of the pneumatic boys who seem to be making it so vocal...

My personal view is if other consumables are already included in the weight, why not gas?

Its never really made sense to me why it should be one weight for some and more for others. And then there is the 2% (2Kgs) that everyone abuses which is only there to give ley-way on the scales.

If people want to play robots, then it is down to the event organiser as to what is acceptable or not. But in a fair competition, rules are neccessary to ensure a fair fight.

Robot building is all about compromise to build the ultimate design...

I agree with Kane on this one. I can see the logic in it, and I for one dont have a problem with the rule change to weigh robots to 100kg with full bottle(s).

But I can imagine the ones that have a robot that was 104kg that already had to go down to 102kg bacause of the rule change last time, that now have to go down another 2kg are going to have a problem. There is only so much weight you can strip from a robot.

it just seems that i am for ever changing thor to get it working to a realible setup. i have a electric setup but to make it realible would mean running an etek on 48v which also seems that rule people are not happy with. so i plan to change to pneumatic which will have 2 bottles in. its just all too much hard work to get it in to weight now. it just feels like an uphill battle sometimes. to get a decent running thor that will take damage as well as give it will now be hard work and wondedring wether or not its worth it. i know envy has had new motors and he is going to have to strip weight off to accomodate the new rule to allow 2kg. i hate to think what john lear thinks with a 5 litre tank. does the new rule go to the vote?

if you decide to include gas then let there be a 48v rule. dont let there be 48v but leave the gas as it is. please dont sting me on both. why not leave the rules till after robogames at least i can take my robot as it is then i can spend a year changing to new rules.

Jason, i know eactly how you feel. Been there, done that. Its a pretty hefty decision to make, I wouldnt be at all surprised if the jury is going to be out on this during the meeting. I would love to see Thor on 48V.

oh btw Kane:
quote:

And then there is the 2% (2Kgs) that everyone abuses which is only there to give ley-way on the scales.
Please do not generalise, loads of pneumatic robots came in well under 100kgs even with filled bottles at the UK champs.

(Message edited by leorcc on October 09, 2007)

You are quite right Leo, it is an over-generalisation.

Jason, yes this will go to the vote at the meeting this weekend.

i meant sending every roboteer a vote form and do it that way. if shane hadnt told me about it i wouldnt have known.

If Dave hadnt posted the agenda I think none of the non-reps had known.

i dont have a bee in my bonet often but are you telling me a rule that directly affects me would have been voted on without even my opinion. who actually made the rule thing to go to vote thing anyway. who actuaklly said lets weigh the robots with gas in.

As interesting as this debate is Dave, I cant remember whether I sent the cheque...

Have I paid for membership this year? I think I have.

I wasnt aware of a vote on any weight changes at the heavyweight class. There is a discussion...

dave lang just posted it will go to vote this weekend

I dont know where he got that information from, but the agenda I have only notes a proposal for CO2 to be included in the weight limit. Its obviously a far reaching discussion and I couldnt see it becoming a vote at the meeting. Especially as there is so much to discuss.

I assumed as it was a vote because the agenda says...

Change in weight of the heavy weight class to reflect the membership wish for change in the featherweight class. Proposal to change to 100KG including Gas

As it says proposal I assumed it would be a vote on the proposal. Someone would be making the decision on if this either changes the rules, or if this goes to the members to vote on the rule change so it would be a vote in either case.

well i think that the rule change should wait and be discussed with everyone who uses co2 in their robot. then when everyone has said their bit then have a fair vote. i have never read minutes of a meeting ever but i intend to read the minutes from the meeting at the weekend so can you make sure its well talked about and put in the minutes. i think its called the minutes (the pages of stuff talked about at the meeting). sorry but i dont do meetings and stuff. and i still want to know who proposed the rule change?????

Clearly quite a few people have issues with the h/w gas proposed change. Im not sure who actually proposed the change as I could not make the AGM but it would be interesting to find out. Im glad I posted the agenda as none of this would be in the members forethoughts if I hadnt.

It was not discussed at the AGM, only the featherweight 13.6kg with gas. Heavies were not mentioned in this. But someone probably interpreted it as when it goes RFL style for feathers it should go RFL style for heavies which is not that far fetched but still not talked about during the AGM.

ye i think it was something like that leo.

jason my dad doesnt mind if the rule changed as he is saying its easy to lose the weight by either buying them new batteries or taking 2kg gas out (but im saying to him that not everyone has the money to buy these new batteries and whats the point in spending a lot of money on your robot when its working fine as it is. yes if it was on TV and we had to change for a good reason then people will spend that money, but its not so why should we? And for robots what were made 4 years ago and have no way of losing this weight because there robot was made to that weight then its not fair on them. is this because of the american world champs next year? but how many are going and can afford to go over there? we would love to but we cant afford it.

and iv heard before that its up to us roboteers for the weight for feathers so i think it should be for this aswel - kind of what jason said

all i wanna say is now people know how i feel regarding active weapons and rule changes in feathers, sure these arnt heavies but it still more work and cost.

Thats not the same. These are already active weaponed robots (otherwise the co2 would be useless) That already made sacrifices on weight and armour in the past, and now would have to drop down even more.

Really, this does not compare.

If there is a vote on Saturday, it will be to put any changes to an open vote - probably by e-mail - to all FRA members. Any rule change resulting from this vote will take months to apply, assuming that it has been approved by a majority of the membership.

There is a desire to align RFL and FRA rulesets. The Americans are willing to adopt our pneumatic rules if we adopt their weight classes. As there is a desire to stage more international events it makes sense for everyone to work to the same set of rules. Also, bear in mind, the RFL adopting our pneumatic regulations is a very big step and I dare say they are having their own discussions as we are.

Nothing is cast in stone, but any discussions must first start with a proposal from the FRA, and that is all they are, proposals.

Trev

I bet that the further limitation for the CO2 using heavies wont go away.

As far as I see it, the main point of changing to 13.6kgs is to fall in line with the RFL so that we are all on a level playing field. So we have to include gas in this weight. So the heavies would have to follow the same line.

Personally I want the increase, but I know it will be very difficult to get Turbulence under 96kg. It will mean losing 7kgs (ie with two gas bottles we are 1kg over the current maximum weight including the 2%).

ok leo, fair comment, im just pointing out how annoying it is with these rule changes, you have to excuse me on this as my knowledge of hw machining is crap would i be right in thinking less weight, perhaps the easiest is less armour (more damage?), or less gas, (lower performance?), more costs to repair from damage (less robots at events?) less crowds?
am i thinking in the wrong direction? i dont use gas, dont understand how much you need etc....

(Message edited by ady on October 09, 2007)

perhaps it would be easier to build a hw pusher with a active weapon :uhoh:, no point building a spinner as you cant use it here, pnmatics sound as if it could get more difficult, perhaps we may see more using hydralics?