17th FRA meeting report

Prcis€™s of proceedings of the 17th meeting of the FRA governing body

These are bullet points only. Certain items have been omitted to protect individuals identities or when talks with other parties are not complete.

Matters ar

1. Presentation of new 2.4 ghz radio rules to concur with the current use of this equipment.


2. AGM minutes approved with slight rewrite to make accurate

How ever to reflect the majority of members present to change the featherweight weight from 12KG to 13.6 KG including any consumables (gas) was voted on and endorsed.

From the 1st January 2008 13.6KG including consumables can be used in Europe and replaces the 12KG limit.

3. Proposal to bring the heavyweight weight to 100KG including consumables(gas)

The Governing body concluded that the proposal had merit as it would tie in with the new featherweight ruling and give a world common standard for weights.

How ever it was decided to go to the membership for consultation first either by written submission via the members regional chairperson( FRA forum contact page) or info@fightingrobots.co.uk

Consultation period to end 31/12/2007

It is believed that this would affect 5/6 machines only

Should the consultation be positive the governing body does not envisage the change in weight until 01/01/2009 for this weight class.

4. FRA membership fees for 2008 to remain the same as 2007 at £10 per team up to 31/3/2008 and there after for previous and existing members £20 per team.
Overseas and new members subscription remains at £10 for application at any time of the year.

An appeal for donations for improving the FRA champions trophies would be made when the year end and subscription reminder is sent out.

5. Member proposed rule changes.

A. To change electrical voltage from 36 volt RMS to 48 Volt RMS was deferred until the new standards for low electrical voltages come out (Approx Jan 2008)

B. To allow pressurized suction of hydraulic systems has been deferred for further technical appraisal with the proposer.

C. Rewrite of pneumatic rules to clear up confusion between pressure regulators and pressure reliefs and where they are to be used.

D. Rewrite of rule 6.3.2 link rule. For certain machines there will be a requirement for a second link. ( this affects very few machines )

E. Arena guideline document name to change to €œArena minimum regulations and guidelines€

This is to reflect the fact there are now dimensions written into the document.

6.A123 trial progress report.

Balancing for heavyweight style packs is still a potential problem.(10 cells)

Three featherweight teams have applied to join the A123 trial it was concluded that the trials for featherweights should not be held.

From the 01/01/2008 A123 style cells for featherweights are approved for use, with the following ctiteria.

Maximum of seven cell packs with proprietary chargers and balancers.

A rule rewrite to reflect this change will be carried out at a later date.

7. The governing body is to issue papers for event organisers to tender for the Fighting Robot featherweight and heavyweight championships for 2008 to reflect that there are more event organisers operating this year.

8. It was agreed that formal robot tech training would be held at the FRA headquarters with a view to rewrite the Tech check sheets to reflect modern practises and recent rule changes.

9. It is proposed that certain gas types be removed from the list of gases.

Argon, Nitrogen and other inert gases would be removed from the rules.

It is also proposed that HPA (high pressure air) be removed from the list subject to consultation with any interested member teams. If you have an interest in HPA robots please mail info@fightingrobots.co.ukThere are currently no known machines using HPA in Europe.

FRA member AGM minutes will be posted in the minutes section soon

Full 17th meeting minutes will not be posted until written up and approved/ amended by the delegates.

(Message edited by scorpion on October 15, 2007)

Thanks for a quick and comprehensive report. Im starting work on a 13.6 kg feather and look forward to resolution of the various technical points (especially 48V) in due course.

I second Johns comments. Thank you for the speedy report.

A. To change electrical voltage from 36 volt RMS to 48 Volt RMS was deferred until the new standards for low electrical voltages come out (Approx Jan 2008)

Deferred. I.E. not yet in place. The rule change has not gone through yet, but is more than likely going to move upto 42volts to comply with new british standards.

For more information, contact Mark Lumb.

Dave
http://www.teamturbine.comwww.teamturbine.com
p.s. Hi again!

Please write the final minutes as clear as possible. Not everyone on this side of the water understands the finer points of the English language. Make clear what is decided, rejected or open for discusion. There are to many should bes in there now.

Thank you for your openness.

Simon

I am realying some good points came up at the DRG forum:

Why are A123s limited to 6 cells per pack if 8 cell and even 14 cell balancers are available?

For example: http://unitedhobbies.com/UNITEDHOBBIES/store/uh_viewItem.asp?idProduct=5606http://unitedhobbies.com/UNITEDHOBBI...idProduct=5606

It makes more sense to make 7 cell packs because 7 cell A123 = 6 cell Lipo, therefore no need to change voltage cut offs etc on speed controllers.

I was just curious as to why the use of Nitrogen, Argon, etc, has been stopped ? I was hoping to use Nitrogen in a future project. Same goes for HPA, although I am/was the only person using it.

Principle concern is the use of 200bar gas cylinders at events for decanting and the transportation of these cylinders to/ from events.
No current event organisers will supply these gases at events either.

As a former Nitrogen user (Obsidian) I have no objection against dropping Nitrogen as an allowed gas. But as one member of DRG remarked, it might be a better idea not to eliminate nitrogen or HPA, because in the future it might be possible that the venting of CO2 might collide with enviromental regulations.

This is not the case yet, but I can see this becoming a point for the future.

Following the infomation provided by Leo van Miert, it has been agreed that the limit of 6 cells per pack will be increased to 7 cells.
The post above has been amemded accordingly and we thank Leo for his input.

Fighting Robot Association.

If the use of CO2 becomes an enviromental issue in the future then the FRA will be happy to look at the use of other gases.

However, I will point out now, that the CO2 our robots use is not generated in the same manner that the effects of combustion generate. The CO2 is pulled from the atmosphere, compressed and piped into cylinders. We then release the CO2 back to the atmosphere. The overall cost is zero.

As an ex-employee of a major gas company (Messer aka Loxhydrique aka Messer Griesheim) I can garantuee you that CO2 is not just won from Air splitting plants because that is a very expensive process. It is however usually the bi-product of another process, therefore the process of CO2 production is not costing more than it would just dumping it into the air apart from the inital investment of a filling station and maintenance.

Andy said something about decanting, be advised that CO2 decanting as its done at events is absolutely a no-no. liquid CO2 has an even bigger disadvantage, there is more co2 in a liquid co2 bottle than there is HPA/Nitrogen in a 200 bar bottle of the same size. So eventough the HPA bottle would be way more violent in the beginning, it will die down a lot faster than a CO2 bottle does in the same situation. Ive seen both events happen in more than one occasion at work, and in both situations the only thing you can do is stay as far away from the bottle as possible. The main advantage to HPA/Nitrogen is however that you can fill on pressure, which means you dont have to take the bottles out of the robots to weigh them which means they are always in a safer enviroument tied down in the robot. For good measure you really should do the same for CO2.

Inside the robot is not 200 bar of pressure, it is 70Bar max, so in effect a robot using HPA/N2 is in fact carring less gass than a CO2 robot would unless it puts in more/bigger bottles. Blow for blow CO2 is more of an advantage to roboteers, however dont kid your self that we dont pollute the enviroment, we are, if only by charging batteries. How much we pollute is a matter of interpretation.

Maximum of seven cell packs with proprietary chargers and balancers.
I have two questions regarding this line.
- Is the 7 cell limit ment for voltage? If so, this could mean I can have a 7 cells in series and 2 in parallel (14 cells in total) in the same pack?
- Define proprietary. Would a deWalt pack with 10 cells be allowed? Would a system I design for my company not be allowed? If not, can I make an open source version so it will be allowed?

Currently the FRA are allowing 7 cells per pack. As Lithium requires that the cells are not charged in parallel you should not assemble the packs in parallel. You could use 2 packs of 7 cells each to improve the current discharge characteristics.

The charging process requires care, particularly when the batteries are used for high current applications. The DeWalt charger does not balance the cells sufficiently for this purpose.

Currently it appears that the biggest effect of poorly balanced batteries is the potential for overcharge which with the A123s seems no worse than a NiCd fire. Although the cost to the roboteer is much greater.

This isnt a closed subject and the FRA will be happy to expand on this once the technology is available.

Im sorry this is turning into a technical discussion again. If a forum admin feels free to move this part to the other thread, please do so.

I understand why in theory it might be a problem to put lithium cells in parrallel, but the same problem would affect discharging several packs in parallel, although you might have a slightly larger resistance in the connectors to counteract any voltage differences.
However, we work with a proffesional battery-pack manufacturer who is perfectly happy to put a123s in parallel. They have done so on several occations.
As for cell balancing, ive seen the issues you mention aswell. How does a 7 cell-limit help to avoid these situations?
Apart from this, the proprietary issue is still a little too vague for my taste.

quote:

D. Rewrite of rule 6.3.2 link rule. For certain machines there will be a requirement for a second link. ( this affects very few machines )

What kind of machines would require this?

The finer details will be published at a later date, but basically an invertable robot like a spinner where you cant get to the main link to disarm it if it is upside down and the robot has no way of flipping itself over.

I see. That makes perfect sense. Thnx.

When are we going to see the detailed minutes? I know there is one point that is very much time critical.

3. Proposal to bring the heavyweight weight to 100KG including consumables(gas)

The Governing body concluded that the proposal had merit as it would tie in with the new featherweight ruling and give a world common standard for weights.

How ever it was decided to go to the membership for consultation first either by written submission via the members regional chairperson( FRA forum contact page) or info@fightingrobots.co.uk

Consultation period to end 31/12/2007

Leo, please explain what you are asking.

The minutes should be on the website soon. (Next few days hopefully).

uhh... maybe the fact that item number 3 has a deadline for discussing the topic and addressing ones representative(s) about it that expires next month and still we had no official publication of the minutes in which it was discussed ?

Hes right you know. Because there is a deadline, and the matter merits a serious and thorough discussion, the publication of the official minutes comes very very late indeed. Its a common trick in Belgian politics by the way, and much despised, in order to hamper your opponents. In your case its the bureaucratic mill grinding too slow and thus hampering the democratic process.

In plain words: guys, youre late with the minutes and the discussion of a proposal is in jeopardy due to the deadline approaching.

Hi people, I have just re-read item 3 and e-mailed the FRA, it reads;
Hi, Ive just read Elizabeth Van Sons post, dated 18.11.07, and re-read item 3 on the FRA matters list.
It states; It is believed that this would affect 5/6 machines only.
Pressure for one, and I would bet there are a lot more than five other affected bots, has always been right on the weight limit, the new mk 4 is no acception.
Despite the ram and flipper arm now being made of ally and the armour only 1/16 stainless (very thin by todays standards) I have still had to drasticlly reduce the battery capacity to compensate for the increased weight of the stronger chassis (it was the weak chassis that ultimately lead to the demise of the mk 3).
To loose a further two kilos would be extremely difficult.
It is proposed that the inclusive consumable rule be brought in on 1.1.09, fair enough, how about adding that bots completed before 1.1.08 are exempt?
Any advantage that an extra two kilos would give for the older bots (none in my veiw!) would be outweighed by the more advanced, newer machines.
What say you?, Mike.
Anyone sharing my veiws / proposal e-mail the FRA or we won,t be heard, MIke.

Mike we are in the same position with Turbulence, I think that we have to lose 3Kgs to get in weight. But I think that this has to happen now so that all weight categories are the same. But I also agree that the minutes are taking a while, we shouldnt have to wait until the next meeting for them to be ratified.

Even if it was a reasonable idea to make older machines exempt (and Im not saying it is), surely it would be unworkable to police this? Even a machine that attends most of the events would have to have its internal componants catalogued, thickness and type of materials used in the chassis, armour and other parts, perhaps even down to what the nuts and bolts are made of. A machine that only turns up occasionally- like ours at the moment- might not be seen for a few months into the year, leaving us more time to modify Ka-Pow! to make it as light as possible and rush as many advanced features into it as money allows. It could all have been done by January 1st as far as anyone would know or could prove. We could then cheerfully enjoy a 2Kg weight advantage for the foreseeable future, as long as we didnt change anything else. In reality of course Woody and me arent that sneaky, and anyway it takes me months to do anything new to the robot...
Also, if exemption was allowed I reckon it would be a significant disincentive for builders to develop their machines. Its been gratifying this year to see how many machines on the circuit are being revised or replaced with new versions and with 2Kg to lose on any new machine (if the old one is up to the limit) builders of robots with pneumatic-powered weapons may elect to stick with what they have, if the existing machine is exempted from the rule change.
With these considerations in mind Id say if were inclined to accept the rule harmonisation well just have to bite the bullet and work out how to lose a couple of Kg over the year. Or we could just vote no. Personally Im not delighted with the idea of losing 2Kg, even though Ka-Pow! would still be just under the new limit now the nose and the arm have been shortened. I was hoping to add better armour. Still, over the year I expect we can work something out. In the long run well probably end up with smaller, better designed robots. In the short term itll be a pain and cost money...

I agree with John and whoever put the rulechange forward that it makes sense to get the weight limits on par with the RFL, just like we do in 2008 with feathers.

I also see however that robots that came from the original robotwars will have a hard time getting their weight limit down, specially after they already had a weight reduction not so long ago.

Policing a excemption is pretty much impossible. Given the nature of the sport repairs and replacement parts are inevadeble. How much of the original constitutes an old or a new robot?

I dont really see a solution where we can save both sides, so I would suggest in order to move forward to adopt thr 100kg weight limit including gas. As much as that might hurt current robots.

I would suggest however to consult this with DRG and GRA too, since they have a vested interest in this too, and not just the UK roboteers and EOs.

There is no conspiracy to pass a new rule by shortening the consultation, not by me anyway.

Time is passing though so I am going to start a new thread for members from my region - East Midlands and Yorks - to air their views, fully in the open. My vote will reflect those views.

Trev

Hardly a shortened consultation... It was after all posted mid October.

Anyway, any members in south midlands region can as always contact myself either via email or through the forum.

To date, no one has contacted me regarding the consultation.

Will the detailed minutes give more info on the subject than already is posted in the beginning of this thread? I bet there has been more discussion than How ever it was decided to go to the membership for consultation first either by written submission via the members regional chairperson( FRA forum contact page) or info@fightingrobots.co.uk

If so, I would like to see these in the minutes beforehand, not in January.

No. People asked us to provide detail from the meeting asap. So we did.

Is that a No there was no more discussion or No, the minutes will not be available before January?

Will the detailed minutes give more info on the subject than already is posted in the beginning of this thread?
No, the minutes will not give more information on the subject than already posted in the beginning of this thread.

Ok, thank you. See, sometimes it can be so simple. :)