A discussion forum for proposed changes to the AWS rules
Moderators: BeligerAnt, petec, administrator
- Posts: 1872
- Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 12:00 am
- Location: Brighton
Simon Windisch wrote:Add a rule 5k to tell the event organiser which rules are to be included in the tech check i.e (2a) weight (2b) & (2n) size (2e) switch or link (2k) failsafe (2r) name
Joey wrote:I can see the reasoning behind this but - and I might be talking total rubbish here - given the people who tend to organise events are normally veterans of this and willing to help people new to tech checking, could it remain unwritten, at least in the rules? It seems to me at least to be a bit superfluous somehow, and there is the faint implication of telling tech checkers to ignore some of the safety based rules, although I can't think of any roboteer who would flaunt those at the moment.
Andrew_Hibberd wrote:I thought this was implied but should be enforced, names are slipping on robots again
BeligerAnt wrote:I'm not sure we need to explicitly state in the rules what should (and by implication should not) be covered by tech checks.
razerdave wrote:I dunno about failsafeing, how many can say your robot failsafes ? Stewie, BH, LD and Divinity do, Bulletproof and Kill-a-chav do not. Both of them are on Sabretooths. Coincidence ?
Simon Windisch wrote:
...can anyone with antweight tech checking experience say what exactly is checked?
I've read opinions on this thread that my proposal
5. Add a rule 5k to tell the event organiser which rules are to be included in the tech check i.e (2a) weight (2b) & (2n) size (2e) switch or link (2k) failsafe (2r) name
would suggest to some tech checkers to check less than they currently do, and another suggestion that as some robots don't failsafe that this shouldn't be checked for.
What I was proposing is that we outline minumum checks, in line with other competition guidelines. For instance it could be argued that the rule
5c) Contestants must obey the event organiser at all times, or be disqualified.
is not needed as people would do so anyway, nevertheless it's there.
Dave26 wrote:When I have done tech checking, I admit it has just been weight and size. However, I'd be happy to add the name tag and to check whether to see if they have a switch or removeable link/way of unplugging (though I don't know the last time there was an ant that couldn't do this, maybe it goes without saying?)
We seem to have done ok without failsafes up until now. It is my understanding that most 2.4ghz TXs and RXs failsafe now anyway? When was the last time (if ever) that an ant caused an issue due to losing radio contact and not being able to failsafe?
Simon Windisch wrote:Ok, so we've got one person saying that we shouldn't tech check failsafes because most robots failsafe and another person saying that we shouldn't tech check failsafes because some robots don't failsafe.
Is anyone saying that that we shouldn't tech check failsafes because robots are safe without them?
razerdave wrote:Only issue I ever had with failsafing was Baby Hell and Stewie on 40MHz, Got stabbed and Stewie Nom'ed my finger.
Simon: Its hard to determine. Robots of any size can be danergous under no control (accidently nom'ed fingers, blades, etc). I'd rather robots be failsafe checked just so we know which ones need to be kept turned on when taken out.
Haywire wrote:I think at the very least spinners should have the failsafe tested to see if the blade stops when signal is lost.
- Posts: 3193
- Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 12:00 am
- Location: Aylesbury Bucks
I think spinners should be failsafe checked but I also believe that only the driver should put them into, and remove them from the arena.
They after all should know how to handle them safely and only have them selves to blame if it goes wrong.
[Moderator Edit: discussion of who should pick up a robot moved to a new thread here: http://robotwars101.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=1810
- Posts: 3716
- Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 5:30 pm
- Location: Antrim, Northern Ireland
Die Gracefully Robotics
Winner - AWS 39
- Posts: 555
- Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2002 12:00 am
- Location: Burgess Hill, West Sussex
I think failsafe rules for ants are pointless really. They never work consistently and never have really - either they don't stop or they stop in an unpredictable way. I'd rather the rule was changed to have a maximum battery life so that a rogue robot just runs out of steam in a sensible time. But even that is extremely difficult to do.
Tech checks are really down to the event organiser to make a decision about based on the number of contestants and the resources available to them. Based on observation, it's usually difficult enough to get everyone weighed and measured without adding extras. The only ones I would want to see enforced more are the blade covers and the name - the latter I can vouch for on the basis I've spent hundreds of hours editing video and going nuts trying to work out which one is which.