Bad Luck...Proposed Rule Change

[spencer harp]

I have participated in FSAE for 4 years now and every year I see a real safety problem that continually gets overlooked. This year it really made an impression because its neglect cost our team an endurance race. Our team Georgia Southern University Eagle Motorsports was top 20 going into the endurance event on Sunday, and we were pulled during driver change for a flat tire. It was immediately evident that our flat was caused by debris, specifically a Master Link quick clip that someone had lost prior to us going on track. Having a spare ready, the track officials would not let us back on track. A time penalty would have been easy to swallow, but pulling us from the endurance course for a flat that was caused by another vehicles malfunction and bad engineering was tough. I completely understand the safety reasons for not allowing teams to work on their cars during endurance, but officials allow a swap to rains if track conditions change, and I see this no differently. The track conditions caused the flat; either poor track prep, or track workers not spotting the debris.



-I propose banning Quick Clip master links from SAE competitions. They are a hazard to the driver, course workers, and other vehicles on the track. In the event of a failure the chain could lock the rear axle and send the driver off course, and the unnecessary debris left behind could get logged in another teams tire and cost them the endurance.


-Secondly I see no reason why a team cannot replace a flat tire with an equivalent tire with or without penalty. The time lost during the tire change is no benefit, and a flat tire caused by debris is out of an engineer’s control.


Last but not least, I would really like for the volunteer officials to take the event and its participants a little more seriously. When requesting reason, an unacceptable response is “you should have designed run flats”, “It’s just racing” or in the case of last year when we requested to protest a few miscalled cones with video evidence “ It doesn’t matter you’re not a top 20 team anyway” when in fact we were. Comments like this make you wonder would this have been handled differently if we were a historically top placing team.


Racing is just racing and I understand that, but last time I checked this was an engineering competition where you proved your design, and more of a time trial, in most races pit stops and tire changes are allowed.

Oh and a little side note that you may find humorous, for Lincoln will be arriving with a hyper elastic polymer tire lining that should self-seal in the event of a repeat.
http://i1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj629/Eaglemotorsports1/DSC_0220.jpg

[spencer harp]

I have participated in FSAE for 4 years now and every year I see a real safety problem that continually gets overlooked. This year it really made an impression because its neglect cost our team an endurance race. Our team Georgia Southern University Eagle Motorsports was top 20 going into the endurance event on Sunday, and we were pulled during driver change for a flat tire. It was immediately evident that our flat was caused by debris, specifically a Master Link quick clip that someone had lost prior to us going on track. Having a spare ready, the track officials would not let us back on track. A time penalty would have been easy to swallow, but pulling us from the endurance course for a flat that was caused by another vehicles malfunction and bad engineering was tough. I completely understand the safety reasons for not allowing teams to work on their cars during endurance, but officials allow a swap to rains if track conditions change, and I see this no differently. The track conditions caused the flat; either poor track prep, or track workers not spotting the debris.



-I propose banning Quick Clip master links from SAE competitions. They are a hazard to the driver, course workers, and other vehicles on the track. In the event of a failure the chain could lock the rear axle and send the driver off course, and the unnecessary debris left behind could get logged in another teams tire and cost them the endurance.


-Secondly I see no reason why a team cannot replace a flat tire with an equivalent tire with or without penalty. The time lost during the tire change is no benefit, and a flat tire caused by debris is out of an engineer’s control.


Last but not least, I would really like for the volunteer officials to take the event and its participants a little more seriously. When requesting reason, an unacceptable response is “you should have designed run flats”, “It’s just racing” or in the case of last year when we requested to protest a few miscalled cones with video evidence “ It doesn’t matter you’re not a top 20 team anyway” when in fact we were. Comments like this make you wonder would this have been handled differently if we were a historically top placing team.


Racing is just racing and I understand that, but last time I checked this was an engineering competition where you proved your design, and more of a time trial, in most races pit stops and tire changes are allowed.

Oh and a little side note that you may find humorous, for Lincoln will be arriving with a hyper elastic polymer tire lining that should self-seal in the event of a repeat.
http://i1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj629/Eaglemotorsports1/DSC_0220.jpg

[spencer harp]

After completing half the endurance we got a whopping 10 points and 0 for economy.

[Fantomas]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Last but not least, I would really like for the volunteer officials to take the event and its participants a little more seriously. When requesting reason, an unacceptable response is “you should have designed run flats”, “It’s just racing” or in the case of last year when we requested to protest a few miscalled cones with video evidence “ It doesn’t matter you’re not a top 20 team anyway” when in fact we were. Comments like this make you wonder would this have been handled differently if we were a historically top placing team. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Now that is rough and disappointing! Who said this? Especially the reply on the protest?

Fantomas

[spencer harp]

Im not here to point fingers, they know who they are. It is really unfortunate for developing teams to be faced with such politics.

[swong46]

I remember a team calling for a masterlink on the PA =P
And that is why we run a belt

[Zac]

Yeah, it sucks that a puncture took you out of endurance but really that's life. I don't think you can realistically expect the corner workers to pickup on every small piece of hardware on course. It doesn't take a very big fastener to cause a puncture and often the workers have a tough enough time shagging cones.

If I had to guess, the reason you weren't allowed to make a tire change is because the organizers don't want teams working on their car during endurance in any capacity. If they let you change that flat it sets a precedent and can be seen as favoritism. What happens the next time a team has a repairable failure? It seems like a can of worms.

As for the volunteers dismissing a protest, that really doesn't surprise me. Honestly it doesn't have anything to do with you or your team. After the endurance the volunteers are scrambling to get all of the results together for the award ceremony. Did you have a valid case? Sounds like it. Would your protest see any significant change in the competition results? Not likely.

What I think drives a lot of the complaints from students is the fact that there is a tendency to take the competition too seriously. I understand why the competition seems important, after all it is what you're spending the better part of at least one if not three or four years of your life on. Many students have the misconception that their team's performance in the dynamic events will directly lead to job offers and they will be somehow less successful later in life if they don't finish with the highest score possible.

Really the competition is supposed to be the fun part. Nothing that happens at competition (short of an accident) will really matter once the weekend is over. Employers won't care if you were the 18th or 38th place team in the endurance race. They want to know what you learned from all of the work you did, what problems you faced, and how you overcame them.

So basically, just try to have fun and don't let a couple of volunteers ruin it for you.

[Menisk]

Something that's hardly feasible for a large comp, but in FSAE-A we run two endurance heats because we only have about 30 teams and have the time to. It's really good in the sense that it prevents this stuff entirely ruining your weekend. You can scrap the first heat fix your car and have another go at it.

[woodsy96]

I had thought about the whole puncture thing before - and because it is completely outside of the team's control, it should be something that is allowed.

I don't think it would set a precedent for other repairs. Just word the rule that states "if a puncture is occurred, the team may change 1 tyre only (so you only get one life). The punctured wheel gets impounded, and the team completes the heat. At the end of the heat, if it is shown that the puncture is caused from the tyre or debris, the time stands. If the leak is through the wheel, the team's endurance time is annulled."

That way it is fair for everybody. I disagree with the idea of "tough luck, that's motor racing" because it isn't- it's Fomula SAE, a student design and build experience, you basically dashed the year's work of one team from something outside their control.

If I was approached about replacing the puncture I would say go do it, finish the heat as if it was legal then argue later whether it is right or not.

[spencer harp]

I agree with you woodsy96, there needs to be some provision. Zac you too are absolutely correct, future employers wont care if you were 38th or 19th, but our investors do. We are a team that didnt even show up on the radar until two years ago. Most teams have more in DAQ and fuel management than we do in our whole car. Luck is luck, and I dont expect officials to pick up every piece of trash, but a flat is no reason to pull a team. Oh and those cones were the difference between 24th and 15th, (off course). Other drive plowed some cones and they were not reset, and the officials tried to impose an off course penalty, along with the 8 cones the previous car took out. We are not upset, and we completely understand the reasoning. I just would like for something to be implemented so that this does not happen to anyone else. Huge buzz kill to go into the endurance in the top 20, and end in 54th because a flat tire. Our score doesn't reflect our abilities. Murphy's law was with us all weekend anyway, blew engine two days prior to comp, projector didn't work for marketing, design presentation was late due to detour, busted shock, blown master cylinder and rear caliper, lost a new trailer tire on the way home, and hwy 75 was closed due to a rock slide. Hard luck or no luck

[Kevin Hayward]

Spencer,

When we first went to the US we found a favourtism, with certain teams being promoted into the quick endurance session despite bad autocross performance due to bad weather (not worth rehashing the details). I don't see any valid reason to treat teams differently based on previous results. It was horrible to experience it first-hand and have it considerably affect final position. I understand that these decisions are made quickly in a high pressure event by volunteers, it undoubtedly leads to some bad calls.

I agree with Woody that a tire should be able to be changed if it is due to a puncture. It would not be hard to implement a rule as outlined by Woody.

Completely disagree with banning quick clip master links. As others have mentioned there are all sorts of debris that come off cars, a quick walk around a track post endurance will show this. The clip failing would have most likely been a case of the sprockets not being aligned. This could have ended up with a snapped chain instead (a worse debris situation). So should we make the rule that rear sprockets need to be checked for alignment?

I think you need to put it down to incredibly bad luck and continue the request to allow for tire changing in the case of a puncture.

Kev

[spencer harp]

The chances of us ever catching a clip in another tire is 1 in a million, but that is not the point. I saw 7 teams with the clips installed the wrong direction, 4 teams failed endurance due to chain failure, and Stuttgart broke out of the endurance two years ago because of chain failure and I think they were using a clip also. I know these things are used very heavily in moto X and off road applications. Most sport bike guys will tell you that they are dangerous, because resonance frequencies and vibrations will work the clips loose. Other than serviceability its a risk that is not worth taking. To each his own. What is there to gain from using quick links?

[BrendonD]

Spencer, I agree that is quite a bit of bad luck, but at the end of the day, it's just bad luck.

Does anyone know how many times an incident like this has occured in the past? It will take some serious effort to have the rules committee make a change based on a single incident that isn't directly safety related.

[AxelRipper]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by spencer harp:
The chances of us ever catching a clip in another tire is 1 in a million, but that is not the point. I saw 7 teams with the clips installed the wrong direction, 4 teams failed endurance due to chain failure, and Stuttgart broke out of the endurance two years ago because of chain failure and I think they were using a clip also. I know these things are used very heavily in moto X and off road applications. Most sport bike guys will tell you that they are dangerous, because resonance frequencies and vibrations will work the clips loose. Other than serviceability its a risk that is not worth taking. To each his own. What is there to gain from using quick links? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Being able to easily pull the chain is the biggest one I know of. If not for the master link, we would have to pull our axle in order to pull our chain. I don't see much way around that really, either.

And though it may be a poor design, one of our old cars had a tube in the center of the loop of the chain.

[John_Burford]

Brief point of history:

From 1979 to 1994 teams were allowed to work on their cars during the endurance event. As having students sprint on to an activate race course to retrieve a disabled car is a bad ideas. In 1995 a second endurance run was added to the competition. Teams would run both morning and afternoon endurance runs. If a car had any failure you were done for that run. Your score was based on the best time of either endurance run. If you broke in the first endurance run the teams had a few hours to make repairs. Quick serviceability was a significant influence on design in those days.

As the competition grew past a hundred teams, SAE educational relations decided there were not enough volunteers to man an endurance course for a morning and afternoon run. In 2000, the single endurance run with no repairs was put into the rules. Over time what constituted a repair has got more strict disqualifying teams for more and more capricious reasons.

Formula SAE is about the students. The current thinking at SAE educational relations is that more teams more students is more the merrier. I believe they don't understand how many students have been disenfranchised to SAE as an organization by the single endurance run. I know many of the event organizes and volunteers who want the second endurance run to come back to Formula SAE. The road block is SAE educational relations. They need to be convinced by the students participating in the competition that the second endurance run needs to come back. Even if that limits the number of teams that are allowed to register for a particular competition.

The second endurance run can come back, but the students have to organize and insist SAE educational relations brings it back.

John Burford

[Fantomas]

Regarding volunteers and decisions under pressure:
None of the people making these decisions at FSAE-MI are volunteers, as far as I know.

A protest should always be handled as stated in the rules, no matter, if it really changes the result or not! I have heard from other teams before that protests were not correctly handled and I still wonder, why this is the case. Stubbornness?

Fantomas

[Ben K]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by John_Burford:
Brief point of history:

From 1979 to 1994 teams were allowed to work on their cars during the endurance event. As having students sprint on to an activate race course to retrieve a disabled car is a bad ideas. In 1995 a second endurance run was added to the competition. Teams would run both morning and afternoon endurance runs. If a car had any failure you were done for that run. Your score was based on the best time of either endurance run. If you broke in the first endurance run the teams had a few hours to make repairs. Quick serviceability was a significant influence on design in those days.

As the competition grew past a hundred teams, SAE educational relations decided there were not enough volunteers to man an endurance course for a morning and afternoon run. In 2000, the single endurance run with no repairs was put into the rules. Over time what constituted a repair has got more strict disqualifying teams for more and more capricious reasons.

Formula SAE is about the students. The current thinking at SAE educational relations is that more teams more students is more the merrier. I believe they don't understand how many students have been disenfranchised to SAE as an organization by the single endurance run. I know many of the event organizes and volunteers who want the second endurance run to come back to Formula SAE. The road block is SAE educational relations. They need to be convinced by the students participating in the competition that the second endurance run needs to come back. Even if that limits the number of teams that are allowed to register for a particular competition.

The second endurance run can come back, but the students have to organize and insist SAE educational relations brings it back.

John Burford </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I worked the track during Endurance Saturday at MIS. I frankly just don't see how you could fit in a whole second session of enduro without cutting the teams or qualifying only the top number of teams from autox.

The morning session was disappointing at times as some of the cars were not just slow, they were dangerous. If you can't get your car tuned enough to meet certain guidelines during autox or other events, then you are a danger to the track and a hinderance to other teams.

The other issue is that the event doesn't get started very early (usually 915 to 930). If the day started earlier, it might help as well.

TL;DR -- Every little change combined could allow for a second endurance run (Track Time Available, AutoX qualifying, and Less Teams)

[John_Burford]

Ben

You're right cutting the number of teams is exactly what I'm suggesting. There were 120 teams registered for Michigan and 80 teams registered for Lincoln. About 20 teams are attending both. There should be a limit of around 80 to 90 teams for each competition. That would cover nearly all the current competing teams between the two competitions.

John Burford

[mdavis]

John,

Being on a team that's looking at competing in both Michigan and Lincoln for next year, I have to say your solution sounds like it would prevent teams from competing twice in the US. Personally, the way I see it is, there's a reason to go to multiple competitions, besides just competing against different teams, and the fun of competition. There's the added benefit of the second chance if you have something like what happened to Georgia Southern happen. If you have bad luck at one competition, you have a second where you may have good luck. I think Michigan was fine, except for course workers (I made a few suggestions in my survey) and I would hate to see the number of teams decrease, especially if for some reason, teams are only allowed to enter in 1 of the 2 American competitions each year.

[Big Bird]

If you want a second comp, you could always come to Australia... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Kevin Hayward]

I agree with Geoff. Try Australia, Brazil, UK, Europe, or Japan for a second comp. Competing internationally adds a lot of benefit for your team and for the international comp. Brazil would be a fantastic second comp for a north american team.

Personally I like the big stakes of the single (or one extra international) comp. It mirrors my favourite form of racing which is endurance racing. It is also the sort of engineering approach behind things like the Apollo project. It means you have to make real design compromises where reliability is put ahead of performance in some cases.

That being said you would need to cut numbers dramatically before you would be able to run 2 endurances (like we do in Australia - come and experience it). Probably not feasible without an extra comp or two in the states.

Kev

[AxelRipper]

If you were to limit the number of teams that can go to Michigan lower than it is, you're going to risk losing a lot of the mid-lower level teams that can't afford to send their car overseas to competition. Yes, they generally don't perform as well, but do they really deserve to not have a chance to run at all? Should those students be told "No, sorry. You didn't have enough resources or dedicate enough of your time to have a top level car, so we can't let you run in endurance." Or not having enough slots to actually register in the first place.

Unless we bring back the Cali or VIR comp beside the other 2 competitions, I don't see any way to feasibly cut the number of teams any lower.

[rjwoods77]

If connecting links are an competition issue then a simple solution to stop it is to mandate DID style rivit links. They only cost a couple bucks more and a tools to put them on and off is about 100 bucks more added to a budget.

http://www.advrider.com/forums...wthread.php?t=331112 (http://www.advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=331112)

[Big Bird]

Re: split links
1. Put them on in the right direction lengthwise - obvious
2. Put them on in the right direction laterally. The link is stamped, so the face it is stamped from has a rounded shoulder. The other face will have a sharp shoulder (rub your finger over it to check which side is which). The sharp shoulder faces out when you install it - you don't want the rounded shoulder riding up out of the clip groove.
3. Run some high grade stainless lockwire around the side link to hold the clip in place. Spin it up tight.
4. A dab of silicone sealant can glue it all in place and dampen vibration

I never lost a split link in ten years of racing, nor any riding since

[Will M]

I think we are getting off topic when talking about reducing the number of teams at MIS; so maybe we should move it to a new thread.

That said I have very much supported the idea of few teams at more competitions. I think that a good number of teams at MIS would be closer to 50 or 60.

A little math shows that over the past 5 years:
17% will forfeit or withdraw
13% Will not attempt Endurance
and only about 50% will finish endurance

That means that on average only 40 of 120 teams have a car that can drive 22km!

In the past there has normally been two USA races with MIS the more important. I propose that a tiered system be set up with several races (MIS, VIR, Cali, Lincon, ect) with a set percentage from each then selected to compete against each other at MIS. And then so many slots for top international teams. Each teams fee for a feeder race would cover the fee for the big MIS race.

This would be a much more complicated system than what currently exits but Formula SAE is growing not shrinking and will have to adapt. This could also help with the issue of volunteers. While there would be more events each would require many fewer people. And fewer teams means the events could be held at smaller tracks further reducing costs.

Just my take,
William

[Flight909]

Its simple,

Each team shall send in a video of their car driving 30 days before the competition otherwise they are not allowed to compete at the competition.

[JT A.]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Flight909:
Its simple,

Each team shall send in a video of their car driving 30 days before the competition otherwise they are not allowed to compete at the competition. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll agree to that when they stop letting all you Germans bring over your cars from the previous year's FSG & FS UK events.

[TMichaels]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JT A.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Flight909:
Its simple,

Each team shall send in a video of their car driving 30 days before the competition otherwise they are not allowed to compete at the competition. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll agree to that when they stop letting all you Germans bring over your cars from the previous year's FSG & FS UK events. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You would have to change the rules for this. I do not really see, where the problem with that is. You may bring your car used in other competitions before (MI, AUS) to the European competitions as well. So does for example Monash this year.

[TMichaels]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In the past there has normally been two USA races with MIS the more important. I propose that a tiered system be set up with several races (MIS, VIR, Cali, Lincon, ect) with a set percentage from each then selected to compete against each other at MIS. And then so many slots for top international teams. Each teams fee for a feeder race would cover the fee for the big MIS race.

This would be a much more complicated system than what currently exits but Formula SAE is growing not shrinking and will have to adapt. This could also help with the issue of volunteers. While there would be more events each would require many fewer people. And fewer teams means the events could be held at smaller tracks further reducing costs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That does not work. Cost scales linearly with the number of teams at a single event, after you have reached a specific number of teams (let's say 30). But cost scales exponentially with the number of events. Therefore it is usually the far better choice to stuff as many teams as possible in one event than to set up a second event, with respect to cost. Which, as sad as it may sound, usually is the driving factor.

[Scott Wordley]

A puncture is a terrible an generally unavoidable way to end a whole year of FSAE.

Students go through a lot of pain and heart ache in this project. This is one example where organisers and rule makers could very easily show some sympathy and common sense, rather than the usual "tough luck".

I agree that there should a provision in the
rules to allow teams to change a wheel in the event of a flat, provided they have an
appropriate wheel and tyre ready to go. Give
them 5 minutes to do it so it is not a rush
and take it off their time. If it turns out to be a leak and not a puncture then annul the score.

How hard would that be?

[Umur Selek]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Scott Wordley:
A puncture is a terrible an generally unavoidable way to end a whole year of FSAE.

Students go through a lot of pain and heart ache in this project. This is one example where organisers and rule makers could very easily show some sympathy and common sense, rather than the usual "tough luck".

I agree that there should a provision in the
rules to allow teams to change a wheel in the event of a flat, provided they have an
appropriate wheel and tyre ready to go. Give
them 5 minutes to do it so it is not a rush
and take it off their time. If it turns out to be a leak and not a puncture then annul the score.

How hard would that be? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I totally agree with this. If the same thing happened to me, I would be very furious. Another team's fault should not be the cause to the end of your car's endurance run. After all we do not design and manufacture the tires.

You could have finished endurance and I am in full support of the "new rule"

[Will M]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TMichaels:
That does not work. Cost scales linearly with the number of teams at a single event, after you have reached a specific number of teams (let's say 30). But cost scales exponentially with the number of events. Therefore it is usually the far better choice to stuff as many teams as possible in one event than to set up a second event, with respect to cost. Which, as sad as it may sound, usually is the driving factor. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tobis,

I of course do not have access to the financial information for FSAE but I rather doubt that cost scales exponentially with the number of events (or geometrically or even linearly). My understanding is that there are two major costs for FSAE; Location Rental and Insurance.

The effects of both costs are likely quite complex. For example insuring 110 teams at MIS might be 1.1 times more expense than insuring 100 teams. So the cost would be linear. But at some point the number of cars increases the general risk and chaos of an event, and the cost per team goes up. So insuring 200 teams might be 2.5 times as expensive as 100 teams at MIS. And 300 teams might be 5.0 times as much. So the insurance cost vs # of teams at an event might be geometric with a positive y-axis intercept; y = x^a + b where b is the cost to insure a single car event, x is the number of teams per event and a is some factor.

Now the rental costs would be a step function, as there are limited possible locations. And going from one large location to two smaller ones will not be as efficient. So the location costs per team might look like a step function approximating y = a/x + b ; where b is the cost to rent one location, x is the number of teams per event and a is some factor.

So together they might look like this

http://i48.tinypic.com/sl066c.jpg

(very scientific)

The lowest cost is at the minimum of the sum of the two charts.

My real point is that Formula SAE is growing and that the single big event model will not always be the most cost effective or the most enjoyable. I believe that Formula SAE is currently at or near a local cost minimum but if the recent growth continues then it will move away from that minimum. I recognize that my model is very simplified and without more information about other costs it is really only guess work, but I do think it is valid. If I am over stepping my self I apologize. I don't want to tell you how to do your job, simply trying to help.

William
"It is not broken, Make it better!"

[Kevin Hayward]

William,

There is another significant cost involved, which is staff (as well as costs associated with volunteers). This does decrease per team as the numbers get bigger. There is a minimum number of people required to run an event, and that number is quite large. Adding teams usually makes better use of the people on site.

One potential move for the smaller comps is to do the same events in one less day, but as far as I know it hasn't been considered a viable option.

Kev

[Thrainer]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kevin Hayward:
...One potential move for the smaller comps is to do the same events in one less day, but as far as I know it hasn't been considered a viable option. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I remember correctly, FS Austria has been one day shorter than FS and FSG. It's basically three days: Statics, dynamics and endurance. That makes it crucial to get all stickers quickly on day 1 while doing all the static disciplines, but it's possible because it's a small event with good organisation.

Also consider: FSG the last two years was basically a three-day event for the electric teams as well, because they had endurance on the same day as the other dynamic events.

Concerning the size of events, I don't think we'll see events with considerably more than 120 teams. In Europe, we are extremely lucky to be able to choose from about seven competitions. My team is usually going to four per year.

Regards
Thomas

[Kevin Hayward]

Thomas,

I stand corrected. For the teams that have the 3 day comps what is it like compared to the normal 4 day event?

Kev

[TMichaels]

Will,
your calculation is too simple. When talking about cost, I am not only talking about "real" cost. You also need to find design judges, scrutineers, red shirts, etc. etc. willing to spend another 3-4 days of their holiday and, as Kev mentioned, you have to supply your volunteers as they are the key people making the event possible.

I will not go into details regarding the insurance and location rental, but trust me, we have done the math for FSG several times. Two 60 team events are always more expensive than one 120 team event for example, by far...considering real and virtual cost.

[Nicky]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Scott Wordley:
A puncture is a terrible an generally unavoidable way to end a whole year of FSAE.

Students go through a lot of pain and heart ache in this project. This is one example where organisers and rule makers could very easily show some sympathy and common sense, rather than the usual "tough luck".

I agree that there should a provision in the
rules to allow teams to change a wheel in the event of a flat, provided they have an
appropriate wheel and tyre ready to go. Give
them 5 minutes to do it so it is not a rush
and take it off their time. If it turns out to be a leak and not a puncture then annul the score.

How hard would that be? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Still believe that the thread is spiralling out of it's main focus. To ban the use of quick master-links or to allow teams to change the tires is the question. I believe with what Scott proposes.

The purpose of the endurance event is to check whether the car can complete 22kms in a suitably given time without breaking down. Now, either you ensure a debris free track or you make provision in the rules to allow for teams to rectify the breakdowns caused due to debris.

And we are talking a tire change. It's not like we'll allow a radiator change due to debris cracking up a radiator. What's the use of all those centre-locked wheels? Tire changes are allowed for a change in weather.

And as Scott says, if it's a leak, clear their endurance sheets.

[Big Bird]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Tire changes are allowed for a change in weather. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or do the rules say you are allowed to change to wet weather tyres...

[Scott Wordley]

I haven't reviewed the rules carefully but my understanding was you were only ALLOWED to change if the track changed from being declared DRY to DAMP. You
must change to wets if declared WET. I didn't think you could make a change outside of this?

Is it allowed by the rules?
Or not disallowed?

[Crispy]

There are a few other options (changing off of wets), all of which are at your own penalty. Check out the FSAE 2012 Handbook (http://students.sae.org/competitions/formulaseries/fsae/handbook2012.pdf).

Page 48 has a nice table outlining the various circumstances.