I cannot believe this discussion has once more turned into a rich vs. poor teams thing.

Someone already mentioned the impression that larger teams usually have larger budgets. I'm pretty sure that's true - because they have more manpower to search sponsors. Here in Germany teams usually don't get a lot of funding from their schools and from what I've seen so far American unis have far better facilities than German unis.
Our team got an own lathe last year. Before we just didn't have one! (to give just one example).

It's always nice to have more money and recources than others, no matter what the rules are like...

Back to the wheel covering thing. Personally I don't have any preferences whether covered wheels should be allowed or not, but I really hope the rule will be clarified in the future.

I already worked as a scrutineer and it makes life easier if rules are as clear as possible so there is just no discussion about how to interpret something.

Regarding the wind tunnel tests: In the pictures it looks like you're testing with stillstanding wheels. Is that true? I guess that rolling wheels have quite an impact on results for drag and downforce.

I have raised attention in the FSAE Rules committee to discuss this issue.

Regarding the budget discussion, I can only agree to Bemo's statement: Being well funded is a team achievement. No company gives away money for free.

Bemo: yes, the wheels are non-rotating. I don't think the Monash Wind Tunnel has facilities to turn the wheels (although there is a rolling road dyno further back).

Bemo,

I'm not sure the discussion had completely descended to the old rich vs poor arguments. The results of the cost report are always a sore point amongst teams. Once you have been around a bit longer in this comp you start to realise that competing well in the cost event is more about in depth knowledge of the event and reporting requirements than it is about whether your car is actually cheaper in real life. Conceptually the Stuttgart car is no more complex than most cars and I see no reason why it couldn't do well in cost.

To my mind it is one of the most broken parts of the competition. Like fuel use vs. fuel efficiency it should be based on cost effectiveness rather than lowest cost. A $10,000 Hyundai is a good deal, a $20,000 Ferrari is an amazing deal.

...

As for the wind tunnel the lack of a rolling road does take away from the accuracy of the results. However the tests are still very useful. I know the ECU guys are using the wind tunnel test results to provide validation with CFD models. The CFD model can be matched to the Wind Tunnel setup. If you see good correlation then it is a reasonable indication that the CFD is working fairly well. You can then explore areas in CFD that you wont test in the wind tunnel with more confidence. The ECU team designed its wings using only CFD (as many teams do with tunnels). The models used were very simple using a low level CFD package for rough approximations. The idea they had was to make decisions based on track testing. The initial correlations to CFD have been closer than expected. This will allow the team to put a bit more trust into the CFD models and try and get more performance out of the wings.

Hopefully Scott or one of the team might grant us an effectiveness of wind tunnels post.

...

Finally on that point I have nothing but respect for the Monash team. Over the years they have been very generous with their time and resources. They have released some very valuable information as SAE papers, and are always willing to share the wisdom they have gained through their aerodynamic testing. They display the true spirit of FSAE.

You don't have to do a lot of searching to find how little of the research conducted in professional motorsport ever leaves the team. This is an incredible waste of the resources poured into the sport. Hopefully one of the effects of encouraging aerodynamic development in FSAE is that more fundamental information is released. While papers written by teams are very often flawed there are still gems to be found.

Kev

quote:

Originally posted by Kevin Hayward:
Once you have been around a bit longer in this comp you start to realise that competing well in the cost event is more about in depth knowledge of the event and reporting requirements than it is about whether your car is actually cheaper in real life. Conceptually the Stuttgart car is no more complex than most cars and I see no reason why it couldn't do well in cost.

Well, I was a team member at 10 events in total, a visitor at 3 events and an official in 1 event

As for the wind tunnel test. I see what you did there and expect it to be absolutely legit. I was just curios. At our uni there is a full scale wind tunnel with the possibility of rotating the wheels. But so far the only thing we were allowed to do in there were some team photos...

KevinH: I am in the process of getting my wind tunnel data (2011 Melbourne car, with 07/08 MOnash wings) off the Monash Wind Tunnel PCs.

When I get the data, I will post up as much data as can be conveyed across images. I'll see if I can put the raw files somewhere public too, if people are interested in our results.

Based on your post, I hope this means ECU will do the same. I've also scanned the (Monash) wing profiles I used to assemble our wing, and the layout/positioning of the elements that ScottW liked the best. This means anyone could CFD our final wings, based on a pretty accurate models, and compare with Wind Tunnel data.

I also plan to get the 2011 Melbounre car on track in the coming weeks (i.e. actually get on to making/mounting them properly). I am very keen to see what difference in G's, slalom times, and laptimes. These will be posted too.

One question for the ECU guys: ScottW asked why the rear wing is so heavily cambered (doesn't use up all the lengthwise real estate; a lot more camber than Monash 2011), and I am interested too?

Bemo,

I'm pretty sure the guys at Stuttgart know the ins and outs of the cost event. The comment was aimed towards those that incorrectly assume that the higher quality cars will end up more expensive in the cost event.

I know in my first couple of events (back when the cost report was almost complete fabrication) we used to get annoyed that all these fancy cars were much cheaper than ours. As we learnt more our cars became simultaneously more impressive and cheaper.

Do the cost report long enough and you become the person you hate

Or hate the person you have become?

Or personify the hate of the cost event?

I'm not entirely sure anymore.

Kev

Rex,

How much the guys share is not my decision, but I would imagine they will update the other post regarding the wind tunnel with at least a rough idea of the numbers we expected and what we saw.

The answer to your question about the rear wing camber is pretty simple. We made a mistake.

The wings that ran at comp were our first trial attempt and never were meant to run in 2011. We pushed to get something running, and really only started the aero package design in the middle of the year (led by a first year). The guys spent a bit more time on the front wing, which was harder to get to work and we scaled the rear wing to match the front downforce.

This ends up with similar downforce values than what we would have achieved, but has an increase in drag. Incidentally because the rear wing is quite high in drag it applies quite a moment to the car, which effectively nullifies some of the good the front wing was doing. There are lot of changes planned for 2012, the guys have been pretty busy.

At the end of the day getting the aero package working for ECU in 2011 was less about the downforce and drag numbers, and much more about sorting out manufacturing methods and initial on car testing. We did however make our own dodgy free air wind tunnel, with workshop fans and a Jaycar smoke machine. The visualisation was interesting and we learnt a heck of a lot in one day of mucking around. One of the things Monash hadn't warned us about is how much fun playing around with wings actually is.

By the way if you are wondering why the guys were covering up the wings at comp, it wasn't because they were trying to hide anything. We were getting bubbles in the paint as the wings heated up, and the guys were trying to keep the direct sun off them.

Kev

Sorry Kev, I never got around to a serious response to this very thought-provoking thread. There is a lot to read here, I don't want to reignite any fires, nor go over arguments that have been done to death here. So some quick points.

1. Thank you Claude. I couldn't agree more. The opportunity to learn, and to network with peers from around the globe should far outweigh any particular emotional response we may have to a car part - or the rules that may allow or disallow such part.

2. These forums are about a discussion of ideas, not a contest of egos. When the former, we all learn - when the latter, we all suffer. If anger is driving you to respond, or the need to win an argument - take time out.

3. To those of you whose primary purpose in frequenting these forums is to point out all that is wrong in the FSAE world - do us all a favor and volunteer. Show us how hard you want to work to make FSAE a better event. Bring your opinions to the table where you may present them face to face to those hard-working volunteers who seem to have got it all so wrong.

4. Pete and the UWA crew seem to be the most rational contributors in this whole discussion. They gracefully accepted the ruling at the comp, (and since), took it on the chin and then went out and blew the doors off nearly every other team at comp. There is a lesson there somewhere...

5. To me, the most significant point that comes out of all the UWA wheel fairing issue is that contentious rules interpretations need to be sorted out with the officials BEFORE THE EVENT. There is all manner of rational and irrational debate in this thread about subtle interpretations of existing rules, and how future rules should be written. No doubt some of you spent many hours researching the topic, finding photos of racing cars from FSAE and other categories, carefully re-reading rules, carefully choosing your words to suit your arguments, and coming to some final (usually disparaging) opinion on the organizers final decision. I can assure you that the officials had nowhere near the amount of time or spare brain space to ponder the issue when it was presented to them unannounced at the event. You might expect them to know that the Cal Poly Pomona car of 199* had the front part of its wheel obscured, or that an openwheeler class somewhere back before Smokey Yunick's day allowed full wheel covers. But I can guarantee that the officials at the event are already going to have their brains pretty full with flag marshals and cones and scrutineering queues and templates and tents and overflowing toilets and cars running around at speed and spectator safety....
If you want favorable interpretation of your contentious design, you don't want officials first laying eyes on it at the event...

Cheers,

+1 on Geoff's post.

Since I'm volunteering for FS Austria, I got a different point on a couple of things...

It really changes your viewpoint to be on the other side of the fence, doesn't it?

quote:

Originally posted by Big Bird:
I don't want to reignite any fires...

Geoff,

Well, there is still a lot of unburnt fuel here...

You say, "... the officials had nowhere near the amount of time ... to ponder the [UWA wheelpods] issue...".

That's not the way I understand it. From previous posts it seems that UWA got through scrutineering with no problems, and were in the middle of the Cost event when one/some of the officials FOUND THE TIME to interupt them, and threaten them with expulsion if they didn't take a hacksaw to their wheelpods.

The key point here is that UWA were threatened with expulsion simply because they were DIFFERENT. That is, they were showing "creativity and imagination", while the conventional "P.A.T." cars, some with fuel guzzling air-brakes covering their wheels, were given the nod of approval. IMO that really was a disgrace.

I have been "on the other side of the fence" many times (in other sports), and I know for sure that officials do not have a "God"-like infallibility (as suggested by Michael Royce). They are human, and they make mistakes. When officials do make their inevitable stuff-ups the right thing to do is to acknowledge the mistake, apologise, and try to take measures to lessen the chances of it happening again (see below).

Passing the buck to the competitors by expecting them to sort out "contentious" issues before the event will NOT work (for obvious reasons). If a team arrives at competion with a "contentious" (your word), or a "creative and imaginative" (my words), design that in no way contravenes any of the written rules, then that team should be applauded by the officials. They should NOT be threatened with expulsion.
~~~o0o~~~

The only reason I am on this forum is that I want my children to inherit a society that still allows "creativity and imagination". Or better yet, actually fosters it in its engineers. It is an indisputable fact that there are very strong influences in homo sapien societies to stamp-out innovative thinking, and to enforce a conformity amongst all members. Read the history books, or just look at modern spec-racing.

FSAE has gone from having "creativity and imagination" as its most important Rule 1.1, to "C&I" now being demoted to a sub-clause. The newly written hybrid rules are already "electric only" single-spec. Despite my requests, no official has yet publicly supported "C&I" on this thread.

You have asked for suggestions on how FSAE might be improved. If you agree that "creativity and imagination" really is a good thing, and you want to keep it in FSAE, then how about this suggestion:

Ask the students to "judge the judges"!

That is, at the conclusion of each competition the students submit forms expressing their opinions of individual scrutineers and other official's performances, the Design judges (ie. how much design feedback they gave, etc.), and the overall running of the event. Officials who rank poorly are not invited back. Officials scoring high marks are given greater say in how future events are run, what any future rule changes might be, and so on.

This process is loosely related to "democracy", a concept that has proved beneficial to societies in the past.
~~~o0o~~~

Students,

If any of you believe that "creativity and imagination" is a good thing that should be encouraged, then perhaps you could conduct an unofficial version of the above "assessment of officials" yourselves. Rank the officials, post the results on this forum, and hopefully move FSAE in a direction that produces better engineers.

Z

Aah Z, I can always rely on you for a provocative response. And it is welcomed.

I'm afraid I'm completely lacking in creativity and imagination after far too many Easter eggs this weekend. I really should take some time to ponder the contentious interpretation you have presented, lest a rushed response be somehow ambiguous, leaving my viewpoint prone to further dissection and criticism.

Cheers mate, I'll get back to this.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Big Bird,

I think Kev's hit the nail on the head with open rules allowing less well funded teams to compete closer to well funded teams.

This whole thing reminds me of the parallels we've seen in F1 over the last few years.

Remember towards the end of 2008 when it was just Ferrari and Mclaren endlessly pumping out iterations of little winglets and turning vanes until the cars looked like some kind of aborted cold war prototype plane?

Then the FIA shook up the rules and we had Red Bull and Brawn step in with a whole heap of creative and innovative solutions that brought them to the front. While Ferrari and Mclaren produced utter dogs of cars because they immediately started to optimize winglets rather than doing a clean sheet design.

The rule controversy reminds me of the FIA's constant interruption of Red Bull for the last two years as well. They kept producing cars that would pass the FIA wing deflection test but could be seen visible deforming on track. When pulled up on it Red Bull would more or less state that if you want to ban it, put it down on paper or we'll keep building them this way.

So there you go even though everyone says F1 is nothing like FSAE, judging by this thread the politics are pretty damn close.

OK everybody, get ready for a broad-side from someone who had the responsibility of overseeing those Rules for 9 years and has worked a few events over the years!!

"Open Rules"?? FSAE already has the most open set of rules of ANY motor sport related (and FSAE is NOT racing, at least in SAE's and IMechE's eyes, it is an educational competition) event/series.

If you look at the car construction rules, and those are the ones you are complaining about, 90-95%, maybe even 99% of them are safety related, designed so you young people can go back home to mum and dad in one piece, and so that you don't hurt any of the volunteers out there as you are having fun. Ask Ross Brawn or Pat Symmonds, Formula Students ambassadors. They will agree with me.

So what rules would you make "more open"?? Aero? This just allows teams who can devote resources to aero to go even faster!! 2 strokes? Why? What additional educational experience would be gained?

As far as getting rulings from the Rules Committee goes, in any endeavour there are rules otherwise there is chaos. Someone has to administer these rules. For FSAE/FS this is the Rules Committee. Yes, it IS the team's responsibility to seek out clarification if they are unsure OR they are pushing the bounds of accepted practice, i.e. being "innovative", BEFORE the event. Then there is no "fuss" at the competition. The Rules Committee do not pass on teams' secrets, although if the answer is a "No", in the past we have often posted the "No" as an FAQ. By all accounts, UWA have been very good about what happened last December at Werribee. But Pete, you should have known that the leash is only so long!

For those who complain about the officials and volunteer, try it on the other side at least once. For those of you Down Under, Geoff has already issued an invitation. For those of you in the USA, volunteer at Michigan or Lincoln. In Europe, there are several events. By the way, if you volunteer as a scrutineer (tech inspector) do not expect to win a popularity contest. It is not fun to have to tell a team that their car, on which they have spent hundred if not thousands of hours, does not meet a rule, and has to be changed. It is not fun to tell a team that their car has to be pulled off the Endurance track because it is leaking oil or for some other reason. But it has to be done.

There are already ways for teams and individual students to input their ideas. Keep doing it by writing to the organizers. Some competitons already have a survey form for teams to fill in. But stop short of criticizing and naming individuals. That is the surest way to loose volunteers. And then no events.

Michael,

1. You say, "FSAE already has the most open set of rules of ANY motor sport related ... event/series." (my emphasis).

Nonsense! I can only wonder if your motives are the same as the politician who shouts "taxes have to come down!", ... just before he raises them.

All motorsport begins with a few young men having a motorised pissing contest. NO RULES. Just seeing who can outdo the other. Recent examples are drifting and rock-crawling, which both started with young guys passing time. Then, as more people join in, someone makes up some "rules" just so they can decide who wins. Then, when the competition gets even bigger, the "officials" join in...

Anyway, there are countless amateur motorsport events/series that have much slimmer rulebooks than FSAE. In fact, a new entrant with a thoroughly non-compliant car is often allowed to compete "just to see how they go". Amateur = for the love of it. I realise that winning FSAE is too important these days to allow anyone to compete, but then again, it is intended primarily to be educational.

So, regarding rules and education, you say;
"Aero? This just allows teams who can devote resources to aero to go even faster!!"

As Kevin rightly pointed out earlier, more liberal rules are an advantage to the LESS resourced teams. And as many great auto engineers from ages ago (Ledwinka, Lefebvre, etc., ...) have proved, aero is about efficiency. Namely reducing fuel consumption, or getting more from less. (But I guess if you work in a country whose government reckons "you only build pickup trucks", that might not matter).

"2 strokes? Why? What additional educational experience would be gained?"

Well ... currently 2-stroke diesels are the biggest, most powerful, most FUEL EFFICIENT engines on the planet! Pop the bonnet on countless ships.

(BTW, I have in mind a small, simple, lightweight, powerful, and very fuel efficient, turbo-supercharged 2-stroke diesel, suitable for FSAE. But ... ohh..., wait..., neither 2-S, nor diesel are allowed... )

And then there is the single-spec hybrid class, which is "electric only". What is the justification for only allowing the least efficient, and most poisonous (!!!) means of temporary energy storage (really only there to capture braking energy, and dead-weight at all other times)??? Oh yes, the marketing dimwits reckon that "electric is the future". Groaaan...
~~~o0o~~~

2. "But stop short of criticizing and naming individuals. That is the surest way to loose volunteers. And then no events."

Nope, not at all. The events will continue, and they will be better run.

The less capable officials will either "try harder", or go back to spectating. New and better volunteers will quickly fill the void.

This is a concept related to democracy (it rarely appears under other systems). It is called "meritocracy".

Z

PS. "But Pete, you should have known that the leash is only so long!" !!!!!
C'mon Pete, that's a gooood booooy. Time for walkies!

I agree with Z, and I think the rules should only go as far as keeping the competition safe. Current rules are too restrictive on some parts, espicially on the engine choice.

Volunteers should be there to make sure everything is to order and goes smoothly. The last thing FSAE needs is volunteers that are there to feel the power they're given over the competitors.

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.

No offence Z, but you're on quite the wrong track. Have you ever been an official at an event? I can really say it changes your point of view on a lot of things.
Your assumption about finding "new and better" volunteers couldn't be any wronger. I'm in the organising team of FS Austria. You can't believe how hard it is to find enough people willing to spend their free time after they left their team. If the few people who are organising the events turn their back in it - well, than it is just over, believe it or not.

As for the rules you miss some parts. The reason to only allow pure electric drive as alternative powertrain is in fact safety related. You need scrutineers who are familiar with the technology used by the teams. How should they judge wether a car is safe or not? Giving the teams a rough direction to go makes it a lot easier to make efficient safety regulations. Sometimes restricting design choices is a safety related rule.
And last but not least. You REALLY want to design a 2-stroke diesel engine for FSAE. Just think about why it is only used in huge ships. Maybe you will see your mistake here.

I really have to say you should think about your attidute towards officials. You are complaining about a lot of things in these forums. Moaning around is easy. If you think it is THAT simple to improve FSAE come to the other side of it. But I must warn you - a lot of things look different from there.