FRA reps meeting (on the 13th Oct 207)

[john]

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

[maddox]

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

[godlike]

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...

[leorcc]

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.

[godlike]

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)

[kane]

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