Or alternatively we could actually think about what were doing and put on 1.6kg of extra armour for the same effect but plus better protection :-p
Or alternatively we could actually think about what were doing and put on 1.6kg of extra armour for the same effect but plus better protection :-p
but it would slow us down, alphas drive was designed for a 12kg robot. Storm 2 was taking of panels during series 7 to keep as light as possible. If the featherweight limit is changed it should be to 12.5 kg to keep in with the trend of the others (ie half the weight of the next one up).
Also in response to the 12kg limit being the far easier one to stick to- I dont see how- surely it is easier to go to one group of builders and say You can have an extra 1.6kg than it is to go to another and say You have to loose 1.6kg. I certainly know which group Id rather be in.
but the american ones are designed to have the extra weight. Im sure most feathers over here would be different if given the extra weight from the start.
Remember guys, we are talking about a temporary change for one event only. A Eddy says its far easier to temporally add than to temporally loose.
Remember guys, we are talking about a temporary change for one event only. A Eddy says its far easier to temporally add than to temporally loose.
While the frequencies commonly used for ground vehicle remote control in the US are illegal in the UK, the current bands in use in the UK are not the only ones available. So far as Im aware 40Mhz and 459Mhz are legitimate remote control bands explicitly for ground vehicles, and 27Mhz can be used for ground and air vehicles. This does not stop you using remote control equipment not explicitly designed for ground vehicles, such as 802.11 wireless networking and modems running on cellphones. Even IR could be used, so long as it is done safely.
Failsafe should be implemented above the physical networking layer - and it is, at the moment. All the failsafes Ive seen or built are independent of the RF equipment used. There is nothing inherently safe about the 40MHz band; it is just a set of numbers.
Jim:
No 459 mhz is not explicitly designed for ground vehicles ..it is still totally ok to use this frequency in model aircaft.
At the mo I have 2 reftec UHF transmitters that work...1 receiver and 1 (much better quality) multiplex Tx and Rx that works great ..all on UHF 259 Mhz and allowable in model aircraft and bots.
One day I will get round to using it in a bot but at the mo we are having no probs with 40 mhz.
Tom
My apologies, Tom. I know better now.
Im actually thinking of going to 40MHz for Cayennes refit due to the latency problems Ive had at 459MHz... but this is way off topic now.
What probs have you had jim?
The main attraction to me with UHF seems to be the very short RX ariel...basically 4 inch or so wire, so very easy to mount in a bot.
From range checks I have done it seems fine and I remember flying a friends model circa 1977 when the British Reftec 1st came out and range was not a problem...the short stubby Tx ariel is also a bonus.
But like I say at the mo 40 mhz with a Quick Uk Rx antenna is working great for us...we read alot of bad reviews about this antenna but we have had no probs whatsoever radio wise since using it.
From asking around fellow modellers Becker UHF gear is supposed to be the dogs bol**cks and I also remember another British maker called Cotswold doing UHF gear.
Of course Roger Plant does a UHF conversion to your existing radio gear which is useful if you want to use your existing gear coz it may be a full computer set but it adds another box to the Rx and a clunky looking box on your Tx and is VERY expensive but evidently works ok.
Decisions Decisions.
Tom
Bookmarks