Proposed 100kg weight rule - East Mids and Yorks area discus

I am trying something new.

In the past I have tried to have an e-mail poll over rule changes and recieved little or no response. This thread is open to anyone to throw in their views, but by Jan 1st I will do a head count from all those in my region only and will vote on the new weight - 100kg including gas - accordingly.

The minutes of the last meeting should have been published by now, but most of what has been discussed is common knowledge now on the forum and there are no surprises.

The thread is now open for discussions........

Trev

My view. Simple. Series 7 machines or earlier, without large changes should be allowed to keep the 100kg+ 2 kg CO2/

All newer ones, 100 kg all in. No Problemo.

I dont see how allowing machines that were built for series 7 to be heavier would be a fair way of going about it, currently all machines are built for 100Kg +CO2, whether they were built 5 years ago or 2 months ago.

As a team with 3 heavy weight pneumatic bots it would effect all 3 of ours, and i know of plenty of other teams that it would seriously effect. I can see the sense in having a set of international rules is a good idea, but how many of the effected machines are actually considering going to the USA or other countries?

The reason for the featherweights taking to the included weight limit was; they were already been given the extra weight, therefore doesnt exclude any machines currently on the circuit, unlike it will with the heavyweights.

I agree with mario. Series 7 machines or earlier, without large changes should be allowed to keep the 100kg+ 2 kg CO2.
Without the use of A123 cells its impossable to loose another 2kg.

On all the new robots i do not mind incl/excl. gas, because if i will build a new heavyweight it wont use CO2.

I didnt know Mario had moved to east Midlands!!

Tom

Man,Trevor doent say only Midland members can post here.
He did say in the other topic that he could try a limited tread.

Trevor says clearly that he will take all the info, and will represent the wishes of the Midland members expressed here.

Also, Tom Kane, if you want to nitpick, Im not even an FRA member.
In other words, this is a public forum and it is up to Trevor, and Trevor alone if he takes my oppinion in consideration. (other representatives can read as well....)

(Message edited by maddox on November 18, 2007)

OK guys here are the facts.
The full proposal is that all heavyweights (regardles of age) weigh 100Kg including gas as of 01/01/2009
this is in order to bring us into line with RFL rules and is the logical progresion from the addoption of the RFL featherweight weight limit of 13.6Kg including gas from 01/01/2008.
As this represents a possible weight reduction, the FRA has allowed a consultation period until 31/12/2007 for you to voice your view to your area reps ahead of a final desision that will be taken at the next FRA committee meeting that will take place in January 2008.

Remember, that even if this proposal is agreed NOTHING will change until 01/01/2009.

Well Geoff

lets drop the weight to 80kg jus to shake things up, think it would leave Tanto and mighty mouse, and id still lose!

I think that the weight changes should only be applied to new builds, all existing machines should be allowed to carry on as is, it would be quite difficult for a lot of the current heavyweights to loose 2kg without a major rebuild.
just my 2pennyworth.

There is a simple way for about any heavy to lose 2 kg. Allow A123 cells for heavies.

I agree with that, all tests have proven the cells to be reliable in both heavies and feathers alike, stop messing about with tests and allow them already.

From what Ive heard

Although you are correct the initial tests have been good, currently there is no commercial 10 cell balancer on the market.

You can get 7 cell balancers, but not 10, which is what people need before they start using them in the further tests.

I think everything is on hold at the moment until they are available.

On the weight issue.... remember that the only time when robots are really checked for weights is at Championship events. If the new rule does come about, then the new Ripper EVO will need to loose 4kg, as i see it, by 2009 when it would come in force, I would most probably go for A123s, saying that by 2009, i will most probably have built another 3 versions by then ! :)


John
Roaming Robots

(Message edited by roamingrobots on November 19, 2007)

There are 14 cell balancers on the market (Schulze LipoProfibal14) as already reported in the lithium cell test thread.

(Message edited by leorcc on November 19, 2007)

Nobody holds it impossible to put 2 times 5 cell packs in series. It will take a bit more effort and chargers to recharge in a suitable time. But that is in effect the only restriction in creating high Volt and ampere packs, even within the current ruling of 7 cell packs.

Actualy, the only reason why somebody wont go to A123s is because the cost/benefit isnt big enough.
No use to replace the SLAs for £100 even £1000s of new batteries and chargers.

I find it a little anoying that we not only have to wait for the illusive commercial cell balancers. As Leo pointed out, they are here already. Apart from that, this holds back innovation as there are a lot of roboteers who are capable of implementing this themselves on a professional level.
What realy rattles my cage is that not only do we have to wait until they are available, we then have to wait until they are approved in the rules, which can take quite a while.
What id like to see is that we make rules based on what is acutally needed, not on what people are screaming on the forum. Most of the time this involves stating that there are no cell balancers for more then 7 cells, or that a certain speed controller has a cutoff voltage set to X which means that Y number of cells should be obligatory.

I propose the following, a lot of which is already in the rules as they are:

Rule:
- On lithium batteries, cell balancing is obligatory.
- On lithium battery packs, fuses rated at their peak maxiumum discharge current are obligatory.
- Using lithium batteries, All power electronics (motor drives, etc.) are obliged to have a cut-off voltage to prevent over-discharging of the batterypack.

For approval of the tech-check, the roboteer has to be able to produce the following:
- A datasheet of the cells in the batterypack
- A datasheet of the cell-balancer used
- The configuration settings used on the cell balancer and a wireing diagram.
- A datasheet of the charger used.
- The configuration of the charger and a wireing diagram.
- Datasheets of the powerelectronics used (motor drives, etc.)
- The configuration settings, specifically the cut-off voltage, and a wireing diagram.

If you are unsure that your system will be allowed on an event, gather the information you need for tech-checking and consult the event organizer.

Because battery technology changes very quickly there is no use for stating specific number of cells or voltages. In the end its up to the tech check to determine if its safe.

As there is always an issue with the maximum voltage 36V, it is up to the FRA to recommend a maximum number of cells for a specific technology, but only based on the maximum allowed voltage. That is the only limit that makes any sense to me.

This would translate in the following way, for maximum cells in series (based on nominal voltage): Pb: 18 cells, NiCd/NiMh: 30 cells, LiFePo: 11 cells.

Just my 2 Eurocents :)

It may also be a obligatory idea to have a separate, supervised charging area. Weve had one incident of a A123 leaking which involved the charging of an over-dischraged cell. Some HF escaped although the concentrations where very low.

maybe mr Trevor, or Mr Admin needs to create a seperate thread, or move it for this battery discussion.

John

i and jason wish the weight to stay the same please. its ok for all you rich bods to buy a123 but there are some of us that cant. and i will struggle to lose 2kg and jason even more.

Well put Shane..

Thanks for getting the thread back on topic Shane, and, as Jonno wrote the discussion of A123 batteries should move to another or its own thread.

Just one point on A123s, it is hard to vote - at the FRA meetings - on matters of safety when very few of us understand the technology. We are aware what can happen when it goes wrong so we have to err on the side of caution until someone can prove to us that it is safe.

Trev

PS I like Craigs suggestion.....

Why not have a grandfather clause for existing UK built robots that would have difficulty in losing weight? They would be allowed to continue competing in the UK. All new builds would have to comply with the new rules. This could lead to two difficulties, both of which can be overcome:

1. Since the whole idea of the rule change is to create a uniform international standard, so robots from all countries can compete on an equal basis, these grandfathered robots would not be able to compete outside the UK. If people really want to compete outside the UK they will have to find a way to lose wieght or build a new machine.
2. If international robots come here for a competition, the grandfathered machines would not be able to take part. [But given that most roboteers like a good fight I suspect that many foreign machines would be willing to fight them anyway.]
I say UK above but we might want to extend this to the Netherlands if there are Dutch roboteers with machines that are having difficulty in losing weight.

In the words of the good dragons den... Ill tell you where im at....

My initial responce was NO WAY!

Old ripper is just about keeping going, and already only has a small amount of top armour to get it in weight. 102kg without gas.

Theres pysically no way it could loose 2kg without a major overhaul of the drive system.... something im not prepared to do on the old girl !

The new ripper, has 4kg of gas, and already it is slightly over weight and the plan is to loose enough to give it a hardox body, and the thought of loosing 4kg is scarey.

Baring in mind though that it would be the summer of 2009 before it was officially weighed at the new limit, i know that it most probably will hahve been rebuild buy then, and the new weight limit would be taken into consideration.

I am warming the idea to a grandfather type of rule, all it means is that we fade the rule in slowly... all be it very slowly... old machines can continue... new machines use the rule as they could be classed as an improvement on old machines anyway.

When would grandfather rule kick in.. machines built from when January 2009, or January 2008??

I think that is possibly the way forward to accommodate everyone.

John
http://www.RoamingRobots.co.ukwww.RoamingRobots.co.uk

I too like the sound of Mr Frizells Grandfather clause It could well be the solution that we are looking for.
Can I take it that you wouldnt mind if it were put forward to the committee as a formal proposal John?

As the intent was not to introduce any changes until Jan. 2009, I think that could be the date the clause kicks in. Maybe with a proviso that any new machines built during 2008 wouldnt qualify for Grandfather status.

I would certainly welcome any comments from others on this.

(Message edited by scorpion on November 20, 2007)

im still for the 80kg weight limit lol

I think john has the right idea, with the proviso that anything new from jan 2008 will have to comply with the 2009 rules, in the same style as F1, cars must be made to conform with rules for 2010 even back in 06.

What about robots that flaunt the 100kg limit with 2%, I hate that, 100kg is 100kg not 101.6kg or 102kg
if you weighed in at 101.6kg at my event i wouldnt let u compete
100kg should is the maximum weight limit not recommended limit build close to it not over it!

i too like the grandfather rule. nice idea :)

Craig: If people deliberatly build to 102kg empty I wouldnt be happy either.

There are heavyweights in Holland and Germany (please dont forget our GRA friends, remember Tsunami?) that would have a pretty much impossible task of getting their weight down. If these robots are covered by a Grandfather rule that would be great. I am still not sure how much of an old robot would constitute a grandfather robot though.

For instance, I bought Hannibal, a series 5 robot. After 1 demo fight we ripped out pretty much everything that was originally in there, except the motors and the wheels, and replaced it with new stuff. So pretty much the only thing left original was the shell and the motors and the wheels. Is that still a Grandfather robot? My first instinct is no. But what if I had only changed speed controllers? Then Id say yes.

How far do you need to alter your robot not to be considered a Grandfather robot?

After the changes in Hannibal, the Weight Limit was a laugh. So, even grandfathered, no problem on the scales.

The grandfather clause only works if people arent willing to spend a lot of time or money on the robot.

That said, is the proposed new rule good? No, it reduces the use of pneumatic CO2 robots. And we have a lot of these.
But we have to keep in mind its just a hobby, not something you will spend months wages upon. Some of us can spend 1000s, others just 10s.

I think the definition between old and new doesnt have to be a problem, use a bit of common sense to distinguish, For example if you rip the insides out, and keep the same chassis and shell, then it is the same robot. I think we would know if someone built a new robot.

Plus.. any robot wearing slippers is of course a grandfather :) Shane.... your a grandfather.

It doesnt automatically reduce the number of pneumatic robots, it makes it more of a challenge.

I think the grand father rule is the way forward. And think it should come in from January 2008.

John
http://www.RoamingRobots.co.ukwww.RoamingRobots.co.uk

Mario: I was using Hannibal as an example of a radical change internaly, not that it would have a problem with weight.

I could go along with the grandfather rule, I think it is an elegant solution to the problem.

I have stayed out of this dicussion as it doesnt really affect me as I usually end up building a new heavy each year and I dont use pneumatics :)

But I just thought I would throw in my 2 cents on the grandfather idea. It is a very nice idea but instead of trying to define when a grandfather bot is no longer a grandfather because it has had too many upgrades etc how about we just set a long time limit of say 2 or 3 years for all bots to comply with the new rule set? So that in 2011 everyone would be fighting under the same rules, it wouldnt affect people in the immediate future and you would have plenty of time to plan how to remove weight from a bot.

2011... blimey, dya think well still be playing robots in 2011... i hope so ! :)

I think your right that there should be an amendment which sets a deadline for the grandfather rule. 2011 is fair.

John
roamingrobots.co.uk

Thats it then 2011 it sounds good to me, problem solved:)

That sounds ok to me.

jonno I hope we will still be playing with them then :)

maybe we can get them into the olympics for 2012

That means we cant show the Americans what we can do until at least 2011, they may have caught up with us by then, lol.

Ed nothing to say that bots cant upgrade beforehand. Merely that they HAVE to have upgraded by 2011

True Gary, but to have a uniform ruleset compromises have to be made. Im just being Devils advocate, I dont fancy trying to lose the extra weight, but we will if we want to have a world champs someday.

cmon Ed just do the special K drop a jeans size diet

take off 1 armour panel = -2kg = job done ;)
who needs armour anyway ?