2005 Rules

[Brian Smith]

Have any of you seen this yet? I just found them today. LOTS of changes.


http://www.sae.org/students/fsaerules.pdf (http://www.sae.org/students/fsae-rulechanges.doc) (the 05 rules)
http://www.sae.org/students/fsae-rulechanges.doc (rule changes listed)

[Brian Smith]

Have any of you seen this yet? I just found them today. LOTS of changes.


http://www.sae.org/students/fsaerules.pdf (http://www.sae.org/students/fsae-rulechanges.doc) (the 05 rules)
http://www.sae.org/students/fsae-rulechanges.doc (rule changes listed)

[Mark Bacchetti]

The upper side impact tube now has to be much higher. Bummer for teams running 10s. The chassis will have to change a bit to compensate.

[Frank]

let the "war of the dash loggers" begin

http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Andy Pate]

Single nut wheel retention??? We just bought 8 brand new 4 nut racing wheels, that sucks

[Kevin Hayward]

Andy,

May want to reread the rule. It is a rule that pertains to teams that run single nut retention ... rather than a rule which prescribes single nut retention.

Kev

[Mad Ruska]

It is Time for a cost reduction rule! Like Frank from Queensland said, let the war begin. The last years you can see that the quality of the cars will be better and better. But also that teams try to find new ways to make the cars faster. Thats what the comp is about. But lots of this things make it more expensiv.

For example: Teams will try to build carbonfibre-rims like Delft, Lulea and Texas AM. But the are banned from real motorsport since years, and that because there are big saftey issues. But now teams will build molds, buy CFK and the other needed stuff and will make a lot of rims who didn´t work before the finished the first good one. And who can say that the finished rims are ok.Whats happen if a rim will brake?

For me the cost event didn´t shows the real costs for the cars.

It is a little bit like Formula 1...

Frank

[Charlie]

I'm a big fan of the standalone logger. We have run ours the past two competitions at a huge cost penalty, because the data was something we really needed. When in reality the logger was not directly affecting our car's performance at all.

Plus I know there were teams running a logger without having it in the cost report, which was unfair to teams like us who were honest.

I know teams without a logger will complain, but really, if you don't have a logger to test with, you were already at a huge disadvantage already.

As for cost reduction rules, Mr. Roeske I don't understand what that has to do with Carbon Wheels being safe or not. A team with good carbon contacts can likely make a carbon rim for cheaper than a purchased aluminum one.

I think teams that try to do things cheap and dirty are much more likely to have safety issues than teams that are trying carbon wheels. Any team that doesn't know thier carbon wheels are reliable shouldn't run them.

[Andy Pate]

Thanks Kevin, I just went into a blind panic when I seen single nut wheel retention, were already very short on cash!!

[Mad Ruska]

Hi Charlie,

running datarecording systems is a good thing. we used them since 2002 during our testing for the comp. i don´t think that is a advantage to run them them during the competition. During testing it made us much faster. But if you buy them they are really expensiv.

The carbon rims where just an example.

What i would like to say is, that the extensiv use of carbon fibre is expensiv. But you are rigth, i mixed costs and saftey points together.

From my point of view the cars get more expensiv every year. Using lighter more expensiv Materials e.g. for Exhaust systems, extremly use of carbonfibre (check the Delft car) and so on, make them more expensiv like the cost reports shown.

Check what a season cost your team in the last years! looking back on the 4 years i participate in FS and FSAE our car geeting more expensiv each year. (and faster each year!)

But maybe my opinion is not clear enough, because we were short on money every time.

Coming back to the saftey issues from carbon fibre rims:
They are banned from FIA and all ohter Racing associations. Reason for these: you can´t not be sure that the finished rim is 100% ok, you also can´t see mechanical wear on the rim, it just break under force. In case that you hit something, like a kerb, the rim will brake without any warning. Even if you have a really god carbonfibre manufactor the problems are still the same.


Frank

[Kevin Hayward]

Frank,

The problem with cost cutting rules is that they do not take into account what resources a Uni has. Delft is pretty well known for composites research so it makes sense that their cars would feature a lot of composites.

However the main problem is that if costs were cut in some areas the well off teams would just pump extra resources into others ... just like Formula 1. The well off teams still stay in front ... possibly more so because innovation has less of a chance to make a difference.

I reckon we shouldn't try to muck around with the formula too much. The variety of technology amongst the teams is amazing and I would hate to see that diminished.

Yes the cost event is a sham. It would be much better to see more of the points go towards report presentation and the manufacturing questions asked.

It is great that the loggers are now separate to the cost report. There were already too many teams using them and not costing them. The simple fact is that data acquisition is a common engineering tool and certainly must be used in modern motorsport. It is in the best interest of the SAE to encourage the use of such systems.

At the end of the day the competition exists to train young engineers ... not to provide a cheap form of motorsport in which everyone is equal. That is what stock lawnmower racing is about.

Kev

[Kevin Hayward]

Frank,

In 2002 in the Australian comp a car lost its wheel due to an aluminium hub failure. Reason cited as poor manufacturing ... possibly could also argue too low a safety factor.

Maybe we should just ban wheel assemblies altogether?

Kev

[Mark Peugeot]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kevin Hayward:
Frank,

In 2002 in the Australian comp a car lost its wheel due to an aluminium hub failure. Reason cited as poor manufacturing ... possibly could also argue too low a safety factor.

Maybe we should just ban wheel assemblies altogether?

Kev <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sweet, I can see it now, tracked vehicles take over on FSAE. Cones no longer count or you get points for the number you crush.

[Charlie]

I agree with Kevin. Back in 2000 when we only had $3500 cash we built a car had to pinch pennies to get it done. Now we've broght in a few times that and still we pinch pennies to get it done. The money will always be spent but in my opinion the less restrictive the rules the better chance that teams can do more with less.

Cornell dominated, thier car does not sport many (if any) exotic materials or construction methods.

[J. Schmidt]

After reading this topic (or trying to) I'd like to thank everyone for the use of proper english and spelling. Good talking makes the reading very easier.

[Michael Jones]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Charlie:
Cornell dominated, thier car does not sport many (if any) exotic materials or construction methods. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. I'm trying to recall if we used any CF or titanium last year, but I don't think we did.

You can build a fast car for cheap. We finished 4th in cost last year - partially due to the report and its presentation, but our cost was very reasonable since our car is, in the end, quite simple.

As for cost, I'd be against throwing it out entirely or downgrading final cost excessively. Learning to analyze and cope with budget constraint is an important engineering educational lesson, and the $25K ceiling does create interesting tradeoff situations re: the use of exotic materials and expensive OEM components.

That said, I agree with Kevin's earlier comment about more emphasis on report quality and manufacturing questions. Example: they used to have a paper requirement in 2001 on lean manufacturing. A pain in the ass, yes, but it's more true to the educational objectives of the competition than deriving a final cost number. And that manufacturing Q&A bit is getting tired. Are those the same parts they used a couple of years ago? They look familiar.

Good to see data acq. off the list though. For most schools (including Cornell) the only way to get data from courses even approximating competition size and conditions is at competition.