The clean snowmobile challenge does static emissions testing and they are also rife with diesels for better emissions and fuel economy. If you wanted to make a trade off for engine freedom then parc ferme the ecu after emissions testing. Fair trade for what you get versus tinkering at comp.

That would also mean that the teams need to have an emission analyzer at hand...which is not realistic and again would broaden the gap between (attention, I am not saying well funded) teams which have these resources in their university/country and teams which don't.

To parc-ferme the ecu is practically impossible and additionally it would be very easy to hide a switch somewhere or just use the wheel speed to switch maps.

Even if I personally would also like a more open rules set, we have to keep in mind the practice. Someone has to be able to check the cars for rules compliance and balancing the points also gets really hard, if this is intended.

As an official at FSG I learned to look at all these things from a very different viewpoint. You always have to consider the big picture. Currently most people in this thread just throw ideas without validation: "Let's allow diesels, they are so efficient", "Let's allow 2-strokes, they are best!" etc. Nobody analyzed what this would do to the competition or the balance between concepts as long as it seemed "creative" enough.

If the rules set would be that open, you will have approx. 2 teams per comp showing that they are able to think outside the box and the others will start to copy as soon as they find out that a concept works.
Let's face it: The number of really competent engineers is limited.
This is why big companies like car manufacturers break down their problems into absurdly small chunks, so that even a below-mediocre engineer is able to solve it without trouble.
There is just no way to teach or train "outside of the box thinking" in my opinion. You are able to or you are not.

And by the way: Very strict rules do enforce "outside of the box thinking" in my opinion: Double diffusor, F-Duct and double DRS have shown this.

quote:

Originally posted by Big Bird:
Nicely put Kev. The thing is, the world needs both work-ready engineering analysts, trained to do traditional development work, and creative engineering designers, who can look at a problem from a wide range of viewpoints. I think FSAE actually caters pretty well for both.

I'm actually going to agree with Z a little here though. Why should the rules prescribe solutions? (And for example, stating that engines must be 4 strokes is prescribing at least a class of solution to the problem of engine selection). Imagine if the "motive power" specifications were an air restrictor (to limit air flow and therefore instantaneous power), a fuel flow rate limit for same, and a points system that encouraged simultaneous high speed, low fuel use and low emissions. No capacity limits, no restrictions on configuration (i.e. two strokes or four strokes or rotaries...) and the teams had the opportunity to analyse the design problem from first principles. Yes, many would pick 4 strokes, and thus fulfil any auto industry demand for 4 stroke developers. But if perchance some team wanted to attempt to try something different, maybe some low emission two-stroke idea they might have - then as long as it met the fuel, air and emissions criteria, then why not?

Of course, my proposal above requires instantanous monitoring of emissions whilst racing to be fully implemented - and I have no idea how to do that!

Maybe you should ask Gill Sensors to sponsor 10 of these:

http://www.gillsensors.co.uk/c...uel-flow-sensor.html

Then you can have an invitation class with an "energy" flow restriction and virtually no other regs and see what happens.

Ben

quote:

Originally posted by ben:

quote:

Originally posted by Big Bird:
Nicely put Kev. The thing is, the world needs both work-ready engineering analysts, trained to do traditional development work, and creative engineering designers, who can look at a problem from a wide range of viewpoints. I think FSAE actually caters pretty well for both.

I'm actually going to agree with Z a little here though. Why should the rules prescribe solutions? (And for example, stating that engines must be 4 strokes is prescribing at least a class of solution to the problem of engine selection). Imagine if the "motive power" specifications were an air restrictor (to limit air flow and therefore instantaneous power), a fuel flow rate limit for same, and a points system that encouraged simultaneous high speed, low fuel use and low emissions. No capacity limits, no restrictions on configuration (i.e. two strokes or four strokes or rotaries...) and the teams had the opportunity to analyse the design problem from first principles. Yes, many would pick 4 strokes, and thus fulfil any auto industry demand for 4 stroke developers. But if perchance some team wanted to attempt to try something different, maybe some low emission two-stroke idea they might have - then as long as it met the fuel, air and emissions criteria, then why not?

Of course, my proposal above requires instantanous monitoring of emissions whilst racing to be fully implemented - and I have no idea how to do that!

Maybe you should ask Gill Sensors to sponsor 10 of these:

http://www.gillsensors.co.uk/c...uel-flow-sensor.html

Then you can have an invitation class with an "energy" flow restriction and virtually no other regs and see what happens.

Ben

Well it sort of makes sense I have to say. Is there any other way to power limit the electric cars?

quote:

Well it sort of makes sense I have to say. Is there any other way to power limit the electric cars?

We actually supervise the energy flow since 2010 with the energy meter:
http://www.formulastudent.de/u...ecification_v1.0.pdf

quote:

Originally posted by Big Bird:
I'm actually going to agree with Z a little here ...

Thanks Geoff, every little bit of support helps. Also to Harry for the diesel bike links (they'll be everywhere soon), and to Kevin for being sensible.
~~~o0o~~~

I see this sort of debate (common also outside of FSAE) as falling into two camps.

1. Those, such as Bemo and Tobias, who have taken on the responsibility of organising a FAIR competition, and who QUITE RIGHTLY need a reasonably tight set of rules so they can decide who is the winner.

2. The nut bags () who want to toss the rules, and instead have a peculiar sort of fun that involves doing stuff that has never been done before.
~~~o0o~~~

Now, as an example, just say we have some young men (and face it, nobody does this to meet girls) who have been daring each other to drive their 4WDs up some rocky slopes. It has got to the stage where big crowds have gathered to watch, so rules have been set out to help decide who is "The Winner".

Then a nut bag turns up with a contraption made out of bamboo, hemp-fibre, and horse-glue, that runs on vegetable scraps, and covers the course in record time by floating into the air and flying to the top.

So the big question: Who is the winner, and who are the losers???
~~~o0o~~~

Ok, clearly an unrealistic example (err... well...). But I would argue that in the above everyone wins, and there are no losers. The crowd loves it, the other entrants get their trophies, and maybe even society benefits.

Of course the car companies making the 4WDs will be annoyed for a while, and will moan about having to "re-tool... and start thinking again...". But, geez, it is a fully sustainable flying car! IMO, that has to be good!
~~~o0o~~~

As Tobias said, there are very few FSAE teams that will try anything really new. And even fewer of those will be in any way successful.

But FSAE is supposed to be, foremost, an educational experience. So why stop that tiny fraction of the students from at least BEING ALLOWED to try something new?

In the long run, everyone might win.

Z

quote:

1. Those, such as Bemo and Tobias, who have taken on the responsibility of organising a FAIR competition, and who QUITE RIGHTLY need a reasonably tight set of rules so they can decide who is the winner.

I don't know where all your statements about officials come from. Maybe an official has really disappointed you in the past.
However, I do not care who or which concept wins a competition. I am only interested in having a set of rules, which guarantees a safe and fair event, which can be organized with a reasonable amount of time and resources.

And as some of you always pretend that the rules set is limited, because "someone" (conspiracy theories anyone?) does not want the rules set to be open or wants to control who wins:
Do you know what a nightmare a competition with a very open rules set is with respect to safety (including liability, especially when non-professionals are involved)?
I bet you don't. I can honestly say that every official that has some responsibility for the safety of an FS event always is in jail with at least one foot. Especially in countries where you can be sued for serving hot coffee without a warning printed on the cup...

Z,
I still wonder why you do not take the chance to volunteer and make a difference at an event, if you really think that everything can be improved so easy. I personally judge people by what they do and not what they say. It is just too easy to bash people in a forum for what they do, instead of showing up at an event and taking over responsibility.

quote:

Originally posted by TMichaels:
I don't know where all your statements about officials come from...

Tobias,

I was complimenting you for having "taken on the responsibility of organising...", and I said you "QUITE RIGHTLY need a reasonably tight set of rules".

Z

quote:

...so they can decide who is the winner.

I was referring to the quote above. This sounded like the officials have any interest in influencing who wins the competition. But I have never met someone with that attitude.

Tobias,

That was not my intended meaning. I just meant that when boys are competing they want a clear decision of who is "The Winner". This is made easier with some "rules".

Anyway, I am not against ALL officials. Many are really good, although over the years I have also met some shockers!

Z

Z, you talk about coming out with an innovative concept that is so crazy that it works. Would you say that the Deltawing is a good example of this? I mean, it was made with complete disregard to any rules set, and had enough luck (read: money) to convince the ACO that it should be allowed at LeMans.

If you don't have rules on a class you do, eventually, find someone with enough "resources and skills" to find what works the best, then they dominate and keep getting faster until they start going too fast for the squishy bit behind the wheel. This is what happened to Can-am and Group B if I remember correctly. This is what would likely happen to every race series that is out there if they're allowed a truly "open" rule set.

And on that I also just reminded myself of probably the series with the most open rules set in the world.

http://www.24hoursoflemons.com/

quote:

If you don't have rules on a class you do, eventually, find someone with enough "resources and skills" to find what works the best, then they dominate and keep getting faster until they start going too fast for the squishy bit behind the wheel.

I have to disagree slightly with your interpretation here. The way I see it performance and safety go hand in hand. If you start building cars that are going too fast for the "squishy part behind the wheel" then you have two options:
1) reduce performance to "safe" levels
or
2) increase safety to meet performance gains

But let's look at the specs:

1985 Audi Sport Quattro S1
540 bhp
435 ft lbs
1090 kg

Generic Modern Rally Car
300 bhp
440 lbft
1200 kg

So, were the groub B rally cars really too fast, or was it just that car and event safety hadn't caught up yet? The point I'm trying to make is that if you keep limiting rules in the name of safety then you are only going to slow down the progress of safety technology.

With all that said I do agree with TMicheals in that a more open rule set could make it harder to judge the safety of competitors, but that would depend on how the rules were written to what extent they were "open".

Edit: original specs for group B car were wrong

This message has been edited. Last edited by: kcapitano,

quote:

So, were the groub B rally cars really too fast, or was it just that car and event safety hadn't caught up yet? The point I'm trying to make is that if you keep limiting rules in the name of safety then you are only going to slow down the progress of safety technology.

Yes, this is true. However, it seems nearly every time that rules get more open, the cars quickly go to a point where they are faster than is safe.

I suppose it does probably wind up being a fight between the officials trying to keep things safe as people keep getting faster. I'm sure most racing series could be faster, but the technology to keep the drivers (and even spectators) safe just isn't there or economically feasible.

EDIT: Oh, and just stumbled across this coincidentally: http://www.caranddriver.com/fe...n-am-could-have-been

kcapitano,

You are comparing a homologated street model of a group B Lancia to a modern rally car. The actual race cars were pushing around 600hp in the better equipped cars and if it continued into 1987 there were rumors that Audi was going to throw down the gauntlet with much higher power levels around the 800hp region.

I'm not sure I should have to point it out but we have one of the best methods for limiting performance already in the rules. All we need to do to counteract growing engine performance is shrink the restrictor. It has been done in FSAE before, and see no reason why it should not be considered. One of the great strengths in the FSAE rules is the restrictor, add to that a points advantage for using less fuel and we have a cap on the amount of air and the desired amount of fuel. This makes for a fantastic leveling of engine concepts. Add simple emissions testing to the mix and you end up with a great amount of varied engine development amongst the hundreds of univesities involved.

I'm not overly interested in getting to into the different engine debate, purely on the basis that is not a great area to spend large resources to improve performance of an FSAE vehicle. But given the fact that it has come up we can see one glaring inconsistency. We have rules that limit 2-strokes and diesels, but we allow E85. This is a definite US approach to the problem of fuel use, rather than a real world effort. I can see the basis for limiting fuel use for competition simplicity and even running, but doing so leads to a logical solution of one fuel for all. Yet we allow E85 as an alternative to promote development in a better fuel for the environment? If we are trying to go for better real world solutions why don't we allow diesel or direct injected 2-strokes.

There is also talk about not wanting to go down the road of equivalency to not favour different concepts, but we already play that game with 2 restrictor sizes. We must know that E85 and 98 Octane by the current rules are not equivalent, but there doesn't appear to be too much of an issue. Were the rules to change tomorrow we would have more teams considering other options, but as we don't have all teams on one engine now, we wont see all teams adopt the new "universally" accepted optimum even in the long term.

...

What I think we are seeing in FSAE is the inevitability of universities becoming more heavily involved with the competition. The competition was started with the intent of improving practical skills of students in an extra-curricular activity. Now the best programs see the value in integrating the FSAE project into the curriculum. This helps justify the internal cost and adds to the teaching outcomes. Unfortunately for the initial intent Universities have two main goals - Teaching and Research. Developing little racing vehicles with no restrictions on manufacturing techniques and quite open rules allows a lot of scope for research. IT also allows for the best kind of research that is directly involved with teaching. The trend for university teaching is to blend the teaching and research together.

University research at its best is designed to help develop the cumulitive knowledge of mankind. This starts to make some of the restrictions of FSAE seem pointless. Why restrict engine choices in a competition in which fuel economy is increasingly important? Are we to expect that the best internal combustion engine technology is a four stroke petrol engine?

Likewise we have a problem with project supervision. One of the reasons that research informed teaching is so valuable in Universities is that the lecturer and students learn more working besides each other rather than "I speak, you listen". As a faculty advisor I find it very hard to strike an appropriate balance between mentoring while teaching and following the intent of the rulebook. If I detail the design of an automotive component in a design class (that happens to be a part on an FSAE car so that I can run students through a familiar example) am I breaking the rules of the competition? What if I correct their bearing calculations in an assignment that has a question on upright bearing selection? What if I show them one way of curing a composite part? What if I am in the room while a design is being discussed? Where does an idea originate when a room is discussing the pros and cons of a particular design? I would like to think I sit to the right side of the rules, but there are a lot of grey areas.

It sometimes seems to me that the goal of the competition is for the students to gain an education despite their universities, rather than encouraging well developed teaching approaches such as teaching-involved research and active mentoring.

One of my favourite changes to the comp rules, back when I was competing was when DAQ systems no longer had to be included in the cost report if they were not required to run the vehicle. This was a great move that encouraged the sort of testing that students would do in the work place. I see no great disadvantage in rules that increase the options teams must consider, rules that increase the amount of work that can be done on the cars, rules that increase potential research, or rules that more closely align the goals of a university and its race team.

Kev

Kevin: I don't see any problems with faculty advisers getting involved. I wish ours were more hands on, or had the experience to be hands on (though ours is very good at helping us out with admin stuff, so I'm not complaining).

I see that rule as a way for students to stop advisor's from having too much influence when they are not wanted. if everyone is happy with their advisor getting more hands-on I don;t have a problem with it. Some people think FSAE'ers should learn from the very basics (and thus repeat mistakes past). I do not hold this view: I'd rather learn from someone who had already done it and learnt the lessons. And I'd rather someone do a better job than me because they learnt from my mistakes, than someone fail cos I didn't help them out.

About teaching vs research: I'm pretty sure our uni sees FSAE as teaching, with no research value. Thus, we don't get a lot of support. But I tend to agree with that view: there's nothing we do that's even close to research level.

And I def agree with this: "It sometimes seems to me that the goal of the competition is for the students to gain an education despite their universities". At Melbourne, we KNOW we don't get enough hands on stuff, so we're doing a TAFE course at Holmesglen, outside the uni system.

AxelRipper,

"... an innovative concept that is so crazy that it works. Would you say that the Deltawing is a good example of this?"

Yes, I look forward to seeing it at Le Mans. The crazy thing is that Ben Bowlby (spelling?) came up with the idea because the Indycar committee asked for something really "innovative and exciting". But then they went for the same-old-same-old...!!!

Bowlby's intention was a car with half the horsepower and fuel consumption of a normal Indycar, but equal performance (laptimes). I think he was holding back a bit, because I reckon same performance can be had with about one third hp and fuel (hint: aero!). Anyway, no surprise that ACO are the only organisers to let him enter, though I think only as a demonstration(?). ACO have always had awards for efficiency, and gave big encouragements to get diesel into mainstream racing.

BTW, FSAE teams looking for good "aero inspiration" could look at the Deltawing, but with normal outboard front wheels.

(Also, that "24hoursoflemons" looks like a great educational experience, with lots of fun and no big deal about who wins. And Van Valkenburgh's is my pick.)
~~~o0o~~~

Kevin,

"we have one of the best methods for limiting performance already in the rules
... shrink the restrictor
... add to that a points advantage for using less fuel..."

Agreed. And there is another even bigger one...

I reckon by far the biggest influence on speeds, and hence safety, is track layout. Essentially, without any change at all to the Rulebook, FSAE can be made either extremely safe, or horribly deadly, just by changing the track layout. (And please note this is NOT any sort of attack, or even criticism, of any officials.)

So if the teams start turning up with highly efficient diesel two-strokes (or whatever) that manage 200+hp through the ~20mm restrictor, then just put an extra slalom in the middle of the main straight. Nothing new here. That is why the Mulsanne straight is no longer straight.
~~~o0o~~~

Tobias,

"There is just no way to teach or train "outside of the box thinking" in my opinion. You are able to or you are not."

I must disagree (but in a nice, constructive way ).

I think the above is a bit like saying "there is no way to teach how to hit a ball with a bat. You are able, or not...". I am sure that any tennis, golf, cricket, whatever coach would agree that some students pick it up faster than others. But they would also say that all students improve with training.

IMO, whether it is "hitting a ball" or "outside the box thinking", improvement comes mostly with lots of practise of the basics, together with the occasional voice in the background giving small corrections. One thing I am certain of is that if the student is never allowed to practise, then they will never become exceptionally good.

Z

quote:

Originally posted by mdavis:
Markus,

How can you say the rules are too restrictive with respect to engine choice? You can run anything you want, provided it's 4 stroke, spark fired, and under 610cc's. I don't know of any other series (save A-Modified SCCA autocross) that's less restrictive than that.

I can say that easily, as Formula SAE is an educational experience and not real racing. 4-stroke engines can't be the only and the best engine choice in the world. And this competition is to educate future automotive engineers, why should we make them think that's the only way to go?

A couple of years ago they published a new 2-stroke engine for a snowmobile that produced less pollutions and was more fuel efficient than a comparably sized 4-stroke (I think 600cc vs 1000cc or something) for the same amount of power. There's nothing holding back on new thinking except the old way of doing stuff...

When I found this picture and looked at the front wing, I couldn't help but think of this "open wheels" discussion.

https://www.facebook.com/photo...fbid=389555557774343

Missouri S&T, did you contact FSAE prior to the event or did you have any discussions at the event? I'm not trying to point any fingers, it would just be nice to know what is legal and if it depends on any "soft factors".