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

[mightymouse]

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

[maddox]

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

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.

[blazerbotics]

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

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.

[tough_as_nails]

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

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.

[tom_kane]

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

I didnt know Mario had moved to east Midlands!!

Tom

[maddox]

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

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)

[geoff]

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

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.

[craig_anto]

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

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!

[dmac]

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

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.

[maddox]

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

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

[leorcc]

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

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.

[robotwars]

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

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)

[leorcc]

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

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)

[maddox]

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

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.

[bugs]

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

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