AWS24

peterwaller · Post by **peterwaller** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 7:45 pm

Dave
I have emailed you the pdf file.
Tim
The problem is that to build an arena that can be transported in one piece in a normal hatch back you are limited on size. This means you can either have a smaller arena and wide drop off ditches or a good size arena and narrower ditches. As I remember it after some discussions by the commitee about people building robots that unfolded to be larger than the drop and robots flying off and bouncing back it was decided that any robot coming into contact with the wall or the cover on the far side of the drop off were considered to have fallen out of the arena. The rules say the 50% of the arena should be drop off and the cover beyond the ditch is there just for the protection of the watchers and not to retain fly robots. I think that this is probably fair although being a great spinner fan myself I think I would sometimes prefer it the other way especially when its one of my favorite robots. But it is certainly something that could be discussed on this forum. PeteC maybe we could have a section for rule discussions. I believe that the committee would support rule changes, if the concensus of the people agree, and that they do not just want to dictate them.

Post by **BeligerAnt** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 8:05 pm

Thanks to Josh and family for an enjoyable event.

I can't let it go unmentioned that James won first AND second place in the non-spinner competition!

Congratulations to Oliver and everyone else that won a well-deserved certificate (and key-ring - thanks Josh)

Following Pants and RONNY's mating ritual during one fight, we are expecting a new robot any time soon - it will of course be "Child of RONNY And Pants"

Cavecrusher · Post by **Cavecrusher** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:13 pm

Peter
I understand, but that rule came out of the blue for me at that time, maybe i'm used to the RW rules for the bigger bots, where the 30 second rule still excists.

Designing rules around transportability of the arena also sounds a bit odd, the DRG have built a class 2 Heavyweight arena and still have no idea how to transport it without some financial support.

The Antweightarena rules are very clear about the design of an arena, if the arena isn't fully compatible with these rules it shouldn't be held against the competitor.
At least a notice in advance would have been nice.

peterwaller · Post by **peterwaller** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 9:17 am

I just looked back at the AWS committee section and in the last post for AWS20 where Oliver posted the main points of the meeting.

Hitting the outside of the arena is the be judged as ring out. The first ant to hit the outside or leave the arena is judged to have lost.

That should read
(Hitting the outside of the arena is to be judged as being out).
That I don't think is clear enough as it does not specify on the drop off sides which is how I remember it but at least it shows we had discussed and published it back in June 2006.
for full post see:
http://www.robotwars101.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=696
It would probably be a good idea to include that in the rules unless the concensus is we change it.

leo-rcc · Post by **leo-rcc** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 10:11 am

I do agree that the rules should be very clear in advance. But i seem to recall that hitting the polycarb and bouncing back in has saved several robot in the past before. Especially in the arena with the curved roof where all robots deflected back towards the arena floor.

peterwaller · Post by **peterwaller** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:03 am

Yes mine in particular which is why it was brought up and we thought clarified but obviously not. The two reasons for my new arena being less of a curved top was to reduce light reflections on the outside and rebounds on the inside but that didn't work either. As it is now to late to do anything about this now maybe we should shift the discussion to what the rule should be. I think we could also do with a discussion on the surrender rule. I think I will start up a couple of threads in the Q/A section then if Moderators think it is worth it they could start up a new section and move them across.

leo-rcc · Post by **leo-rcc** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:06 am

That sounds like a good idea to me.

I will try not to get in too many heated discussions on rules as i do in the FRA.

peterwaller · Post by **peterwaller** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:24 am

Right I have set them up. Actually Leo I believe heated discussions at this stage are a good thing, the more people say what they really think the more this great hobby of ours will thrive and prosper and the less problems will crop up at events. As long as the disussions don't get to personal the more heart felt the better. One of the things that we wan't to avoid is the AWS becoming seen as favoring the British competitors.

leo-rcc · Post by **leo-rcc** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 1:29 pm

Ow I dont think for a second that favoratism is at play.

No the heated discussions on the FRA front are about rulings that I feel take unnessaserely long and should have been sorted long ago imho. Craig and Tim will know what im talking about.

Simon Windisch · Post by **Simon Windisch** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 6:46 pm

With the FRA a standard reply is "We have made a decision but we're not telling you what it is" which is enough to make anyone cross.

The last time we had cross words here was when that Irish chap started going on about weird rule combinations, or asking to bring back outdated rules when he had stopped playing an active role in the AWS some time before. Needless to say his contributions were not gratefully accepted.