2014 FSAE rules have been posted

[TMichaels]

Hey Everyone,
just wanted to let you know that the 2014 FSAE rules have been posted:
http://students.sae.org/competitions/formulaseries/rules/2014_fsae_rules.pdf

I will provide a changelog for the EV part soon.

[Will M]

Since this is an even year and there are no big changes here is list of possible future changes for 2015 listed in the rules.
(I bolded the ones I'm excited about)

Restriction on Professional Drivers – The Committee is considering prohibiting individuals who have driven
for professionally funded teams from driving in FSAE dynamic events.

5th Percentile Female Driver – The committee is considering changes to the rules to make it clearer that the
driver cell should be able to fit both a 95the percentile male and a 5th percentile female driver.

Chassis – The committee is considering defining the main hoop bracing requirements more precisely for
equivalency purposes. This is most likely to affect teams with monocoque chassis that use very short main hoop
braces.

Aerodynamics 1 – The committee is considering a change to the principle of the aerodynamic regulations
whereby they require the teams to think very carefully about the aero package that they choose. The proposal is
to achieve this by developing 3 sets of aerodynamic regulations and rotating the regulations every 2 years
creating a 6 year cycle. This will ensure that most team members will only work with a specific set of
aerodynamic regulations for a maximum of 2 years and each team will have to develop their aero package from
first principles. The intention is to bring addition challenge to the competition for every student that takes part.
Feedback from teams on this proposal is welcomed.

Aerodynamics 2 – The committee is considering adding wing supports to the SES to ensure that they have
adequate strength

Drive by Wire Throttle – The Committee is considering that drive by wire throttles can be used on Formula
SAE cars if they include a form of the brake plausibility device which is currently required for EVs. Feedback
on this topic and whether you would like to adopt a throttle by wire throttle would be appreciated.

Noise Test – To improve the sound quality of single cylinder engines for track workers the sound measuring
units may be changed to dBC. This is more consistent with human hearing at the higher volumes called out in
the rules. Cheap, commercially available sound meters are generally able to display dBC. The committee is
also considering a reduction in the noise level.

Throttle Body – The committee is considering changing the position of the throttle body to place it downstream
of the compressor on turbocharged and centrifugally supercharged engines. The restrictor would remain
upstream from the compressor. Naturally aspirated engines would not be impacted by the change.

Design Event – The committee is considering including the objective of value in the design event objectives.
This is to make it clear to all participants that a cost effective car which is well executed should be able to score
well in the design event. This will result in the design event being judged on the three main objectives of:
Design for Performance, Design for Value and the knowledge of the team members.
The committee hopes that
this will change the perception of the design event so that it is clear that a large budget is not a prerequisite to
winning the design event.

Cost Event – The committee is considering a major revamp of the cost event such that it addresses product /
component engineering issues including design for cost, design for manufacturing, design for sustainability and
the life cycle of the product. Students will be expected to have an appreciation of all areas of relating to product
/ component engineering which will be important in their engineering careers. The committee would appreciate
feedback and proposals on how the cost event might be changed to improve its value to the students as part of
this revamp.

EVs: For EVs the committee is considering the following regulations changes:
- standardize the voltage limit for all events
- treat LiFePO4 cells the same as Li-Ion cells
- specify a standard HVD
- change the maximum power available for 4WD to bring performance in line with 2WD EVs / ICs

Efficiency – The efficiency event is being reviewed to determine whether the influence of lap time on the
efficiency score is in line with the intent of the rule.

[Kirk Feldkamp]

Don't get too excited about the throttle body one. I submitted a detailed proposal in 2005 with all sorts of rational justification. The arguments I heard back were somewhat non-rational. There are some old-guard advisers to the rules committee that don't like change, even if the change would create positive outcomes with negligible, if any, negative outcomes. If you dig through this forum, there are a few in depth discussions about the proposal. The power outputs wouldn't change, but it would make forced induction a lot more accessible to teams. Given that turbocharging is gaining momentum a standard method of efficiency improvement and emissions control in production vehicles, I don't see why the rules committee doesn't make it a more viable option within the rules. :/ I used to get pretty worked up over this, but in time I've just lost hope that they'll change it (despite it showing up most years in the "changes under consideration" section).

If anyone is interested in reading the original proposal, feel free to PM me with your email address and I can send it to you.

-Kirk

[AxelRipper]

I'm hoping that the ETC one goes through. The brake pedal plausicheck is far better than all of the things that they tried to do last year with the panic engine kill and what not. Also, you know, it is how the electric cars and how most production cars work (at least after the Unintended Acceleration debacle). Having been on a group that implemented ETC on a snowmobile, its not that hard to implement and can add a LOT to the engine tuning and control aspect of the competition.

I am also in favor of the rolling aero rules changes. Being really one of the "big ticket" items that can make you a lot faster if done right. However, if you are building a 'legacy' car with wings, are you really learning how to design it? Essentially forcing people to have to learn is never a bad thing IMO. Not sure what the 3 sets of regs are, however (Different package sizes? Not allowing wings one year? Only undertrays? Sliding skirts?)

[BeunMan]

I like the review of the efficiency event. With the current rules it is harder to use the efficiency score to compensate for lower speed (e.g. use a 250 cc engine and be very lightweight) as you can still win the event but not compensate enough overall. If this is the intent of the rule I do not know, but it was even possible with only 50 points for 'fuel efficiency', 'back in the days'.

[RenM]

I like the way the Efficiency score is calculated at the moment. Its something you have to work on if you want to win, but its not the game changer that forces you to run a 1 cylinder. And that is the way it should be, as this is not some eco marathon. A 250cc engine can hardly be competitive. You will have a lot less power compared to a 450cc, yet your car weight cant be reduced significantly...

I am very much looking forward to the drive by wire throttle control, because it allows a lot of options to dethrottle the engine and increase efficiency.

dBc for Noisetest is also long overdue. I dont understand though, why they additionally consider reducing the noise level.

[Canuck Racing]

Good to see they're still considering the "best design for a price" change. That'll probably be the biggest change to the competition in years, and that they finally made an official decision on changing tires if you get a flat (why did that take so long again...?)

But why in the world are massive wing mounts sending bending moments and aero loads through the roll hoop bracing still legal?

[BluSTi]

As far as the cost report goes, I'd like to see actual reporting, not some "invented" number. Actual invoices for purchased parts, if supplied parts are donated, then the claimed tax-deduction from the donating sponsor, and finally, if the parts are carried over from a previous year, then the MSRP for a new part.

[RenM]

As far as the cost report goes, I'd like to see actual reporting, not some "invented" number. Actual invoices for purchased parts, if supplied parts are donated, then the claimed tax-deduction from the donating sponsor, and finally, if the parts are carried over from a previous year, then the MSRP for a new part.

It would be nice to have the real price of the cars, but it will never happen. What about self machined parts? There are no invoices for that. And furthermore invoices can be "tweaked" too easily to take them serious.

[BluSTi]

It would be nice to have the real price of the cars, but it will never happen. What about self machined parts? There are no invoices for that. And furthermore invoices can be "tweaked" too easily to take them serious.

Actually, this works out. For the self-machined parts you'd have an invoice for the raw materials and the processing cost could be discounted/ignored if done in-house. This is good because it "incentivizes" teams to produce their own parts. If the part was machined by a sponsor, then there would be an invoice for the machine time, which could be costed at some standard rate, maybe $75/hr.

As far as doctoring invoices, I reckon that falls under the guise of cheating, and maybe some unscrupulous teams would do it. However, after comparing lots of team's cost reports I would think that doctored invoices would start to become apparent.

[stayflatandkeepturning]

I completely dissagree with the proposed 2 year cycle of the aerodynamics. Designing an aero package take so much time and resourses that it is very hard to have a well designed aero package on the car in time for testing. Maybee if they told us what the 3 rule sets are it would be a little easier pill to swallow but even then a tough one. I understant the argument that one student designed an aero package, graduates, and the team continues to use the same aero package for a few years. The thing is tho that no matter how good said aero package is it can always be better, or changes to the cars hard points, engine location, frame ect will force the aero to change as well. I think that with such a hard concept to master you really only gain anything when you itterate on previous aero designs and try new concepts. Beside no matter how much downforce you make in a fsae car you are still limited on how much cornering capability you have because all of the tires right now are garbage(sidewall way to soft). Aero in FSAE is about compromise and in the design competition they just want to make sure you know the fundamentals of aero.

[apalrd]

Having been on a group that implemented ETC on a snowmobile, its not that hard to implement and can add a LOT to the engine tuning and control aspect of the competition.


Ripper worked with a system that implemented ETC as a position lookup table and ran all of the combustion math as a mechahanical throttle control system (based purely on MAP and measured TPS). This worked, and we could calibrate the pedal to throttle curve in multiple engine modes, but we were still optimising combustion and etc as two separate systems, so transients weren't very good. But even that provided huge advantages to the snowmobile team.


The next gen snowmobile ETC system is torque based, which with full authority control (fuel, spark, airflow/ETC, turbo, and all of the emissions systems) allows an amazing flexibility in engine calibration, dealing with transients and turbo lag, and a number of other things.

ETC in FSAE would, to me, allow much better optimization of all engine operating points, especially in a whole bunch of corner cases (decel fuel shutoff airflow, turbo interaction, shift execution, to name a few FSAE cases). It also allows a lot of interaction between airflow and fuel/spark to control torque output, for example the snowmobile system will compensate for retarded spark due to knock (measured with a knock sensor) by increasing airflow so net torque output remains the same. likewise, it can retard spark or cut/lean fuel while the throttle is flowing too much air, which can maintain desired torque now while beginning to pre-spool the turbo or to hold a torque reserve for even faster transients. So I support ETC in FSAE for the benefits of optimizing the engine as a full system instead of as fuel and spark.

[RenM]

Actually, this works out. For the self-machined parts you'd have an invoice for the raw materials and the processing cost could be discounted/ignored if done in-house. This is good because it "incentivizes" teams to produce their own parts. If the part was machined by a sponsor, then there would be an invoice for the machine time, which could be costed at some standard rate, maybe $75/hr.


For most parts the processing costs are way higher then the material costs. So simply ignore the machining costs if its done inhouse is not a feasible away, as it would strongly penalize the teams that dont have the machinery to manufacture a lot of parts them-self.
If you take a standard rate for machine time, you are right where you are now. Your system of invoices would work even worse then the current system. Not every sponsor does an invoice on manufactured parts and if they do it still doesnt always reflect the price you had to pay as normal customer. There is no way a cost report will ever give an accurate production price of the car. Cost is rather an education on how to make a bill of materials for the students then to give an accurate measure of how much the car actually costs.

[Francis Gagné]

Aerodynamics 1 - I think this would hurt the teams that have few aero knowledge more than anything. Let's say we design a first car, new platform more suitable for an aero package. For a small team, this can easily take two years if it includes new chassis, new suspension and new engine at the same time. Then, another year to adjust the new platform after testing and design a first iteration aero package. Then the year after then can come with a car with a sensible, data tested aero package on a platform designed for the purpose. It took 4 years, the aero rules change once in this time, and the platform goes obsolete again the next year. It's a burden. Small team don't have the manpower to adapt this fast, they already have a lot on their hands.

It would also hurt teams pursuing more "out-of-the-box" concept car (thinking of UWA by example) who their entire platform idea rests on the current ruleset. IMHO this will probably lead to an aero chassis concept that is midway of the three ruleset. In fact big teams will probably develop the car considering the three ruleset at once and be prepared for the switch between pre-developed/tested package. Something smaller teams can not much afford, a simple, well design aero package is already very much a challenge for small teams.

Cost Event - I in fact like the current cost event, it does reflect the reality of a SMALL PRODUCTION run. It is supposed not the reflect the price of a prototype, plus, the costing is IMO pretty fair since it is the same no matter what your international location is. It already adresses the first two points, Design For Cost, and Design For Manufacturing. Sustainability and PLC are interesting aspects, but I don't know how it could be implemetented, if anything it should be more in the form of the "real cost event" more than in the cost calculations. All FSAErs knows the costs of a prototype, learning the cost and manufacturing of production runs is a much valuable experience we right now only get through the cost event, I'd like it to stay that way.

Also, I think the cost report needs to be streamlined. Teams, and especially smaller teams have a negative appreciation of the cost report and it's learning experience because of the slow and repetitive nature of the report. Most people I know rushes it to end it the fastest, not really trying to understand how they could make each part better, or assembly better. Mostly because by botching the cost report there is a lot less to lose than botching the car and not making to comp, or finishing endurance.

[AxelRipper]

As far as the cost event goes, once you get used to it, it isn't that bad to get a decent report in. Think of it as design for the business people. The engineers spend countless hours staring at a computer screen designing the car while the business people can go off and do.... Whatever it is business people do, so when the cost report time comes it gives them a chance to enjoy countless sleepless hours of multi-screen action.

That being said, I do have a bit of a bone to pick about this year's choice of real-case topics. The oil filter? And then mark us off when we can't really meet the proper cost reduction criteria since we're already running the stock internal oil filter?

[AndrewPBR]

That being said, I do have a bit of a bone to pick about this year's choice of real-case topics. The oil filter? And then mark us off when we can't really meet the proper cost reduction criteria since we're already running the stock internal oil filter?

I'm going to have to disagree there. At first I was very opposed as well but by the end I liked the idea. Because the filter is cost as part of the engine, there were way less numbers in the way and the focus was more theory about what a filter actually does and what alternatives are available. Justifying a completely different design choice to save money instead of downsizing the existing design.

Just my 2 cents on it.

Do like the idea of integrating the static events a bit more and designing for value becoming part of the Design event.

[Brian S.]

If anyone is interested in reading the original proposal, feel free to PM me with your email address and I can send it to you.

-Kirk

I tried sending you my E-mail, but it says that your inbox is full.

[Mbirt]

I like the review of the efficiency event. With the current rules it is harder to use the efficiency score to compensate for lower speed (e.g. use a 250 cc engine and be very lightweight) as you can still win the event but not compensate enough overall. If this is the intent of the rule I do not know, but it was even possible with only 50 points for 'fuel efficiency', 'back in the days'.
The proposed change is vague concerning an increase or decrease of weighting for pace, I can see cases for it going either way and would like to know what the current thoughts of the organisers are. Kettering likes the current weighting, but what BeunMan describes would be nice too. Is the concern that low consumption is not rewarded enough or that pace needs to be weighted more heavily?

Concerning the switch to dBC, this is very likely to happen. Single cylinder teams in the 108-110 dBA range will have trouble reading under 117 dBC without rethinking muffler design. A new noise limit of 115 dBC or less should infuriate single cylinder teams.

[tromoly]

Aerodynamics 1 - I think this would hurt the teams that have few aero knowledge more than anything. Let's say we design a first car, new platform more suitable for an aero package. For a small team, this can easily take two years if it includes new chassis, new suspension and new engine at the same time. Then, another year to adjust the new platform after testing and design a first iteration aero package. Then the year after then can come with a car with a sensible, data tested aero package on a platform designed for the purpose. It took 4 years, the aero rules change once in this time, and the platform goes obsolete again the next year. It's a burden. Small team don't have the manpower to adapt this fast, they already have a lot on their hands.


A few of us were talking about this earlier at our "small" school, and we really don't see why aero is such an important feature for every team to implement. Yes it can work, yes it can be beneficial, but a non-Aero car (looking at you, Auburn, in Autocross at Michigan this year) can be developed to be nearly as fast. Not every team wants to run aero packages, it should be up to each individual team if they think it's worth the effort, and with the revolving regulation that would be another factor to keep in mind. Personally I think it's a great rule, keep teams from showing up with the same aero package as years previous and adding variety to the paddock.

[Mbirt]

Ripper worked with a system that implemented ETC as a position lookup table and ran all of the combustion math as a mechahanical throttle control system (based purely on MAP and measured TPS). This worked, and we could calibrate the pedal to throttle curve in multiple engine modes, but we were still optimising combustion and etc as two separate systems, so transients weren't very good. But even that provided huge advantages to the snowmobile team.


The next gen snowmobile ETC system is torque based, which with full authority control (fuel, spark, airflow/ETC, turbo, and all of the emissions systems) allows an amazing flexibility in engine calibration, dealing with transients and turbo lag, and a number of other things.

ETC in FSAE would, to me, allow much better optimization of all engine operating points, especially in a whole bunch of corner cases (decel fuel shutoff airflow, turbo interaction, shift execution, to name a few FSAE cases). It also allows a lot of interaction between airflow and fuel/spark to control torque output, for example the snowmobile system will compensate for retarded spark due to knock (measured with a knock sensor) by increasing airflow so net torque output remains the same. likewise, it can retard spark or cut/lean fuel while the throttle is flowing too much air, which can maintain desired torque now while beginning to pre-spool the turbo or to hold a torque reserve for even faster transients. So I support ETC in FSAE for the benefits of optimizing the engine as a full system instead of as fuel and spark.Shh! Now everyone is going to show up with torque-based calibrations in 2015 http://www.fsae.com/forums/images/icons/icon12.png

[MCoach]

Shh! Now everyone is going to show up with torque-based calibrations in 2015 http://www.fsae.com/forums/images/icons/icon12.png

Shhh! Both of you talk too much.

[Michael Royce]

The 2014 Formula Hybrid Rules have been posted too, at http://www.formula-hybrid.org/index.php

[Bemo]

But why in the world are massive wing mounts sending bending moments and aero loads through the roll hoop bracing still legal?
They are not. The rules already state that the main hoop bracings must have additional triangulated supports if the have to take bending loads otherwise. At FSG this year several teams had to weld additional supports for their main hoop bracings because the wing supports were sending bending loads into them.

[Francis Gagné]

A few of us were talking about this earlier at our "small" school, and we really don't see why aero is such an important feature for every team to implement. Yes it can work, yes it can be beneficial, but a non-Aero car (looking at you, Auburn, in Autocross at Michigan this year) can be developed to be nearly as fast. Not every team wants to run aero packages, it should be up to each individual team if they think it's worth the effort, and with the revolving regulation that would be another factor to keep in mind. Personally I think it's a great rule, keep teams from showing up with the same aero package as years previous and adding variety to the paddock.

Sorry, I wasn't implying that we need aero to be competitive.. As you said it, with the present rules, a non-aero car can be very competitive. What I meant to say is that for «small» teams that do want to play the aero game (performance, or learning, or any other good or bad reason), the new rules would make it harder for them to have a competitive aero package. It is already up to the team to choose, it's just that the new rules would make the minimum effort for aero even bigger, which I don't think is what we need in FSAE, we don't need another factor to keep in mind. It seems that there intention is to make the students learn and understand the basic of aerodynamics. But I think that overall, teams that already knows it will continue to do so, and other students won't learn these basics because they will drop the aero altogether.

In the propostion they state they want to add challenge, but I think FSAE is already challenging as it is for most of the teams. Teams with less manpower needs more time and long term planning to develop a concept and reach the "level" of bigger teams, that is normal and fine by me. But we need time to get there, if the rules keep changing, we cannot make this planned evolution.

[Canuck Racing]

They are not. The rules already state that the main hoop bracings must have additional triangulated supports if the have to take bending loads otherwise. At FSG this year several teams had to weld additional supports for their main hoop bracings because the wing supports were sending bending loads into them.

You are correct Bemo. Good to hear they at least enforce the rule overseas.

"T3.13.7 If any item which is outside the envelope of the Primary Structure is attached to the Main Hoop braces, then additional bracing must be added to prevent bending loads in the braces in any rollover attitude."

I guess my next bone to pick will have to be the lack of a welding test a la Baja SAE, though the test is obviously easily circumvented.

[Z]

Aerodynamics 1 - I think this would hurt the teams that have few aero knowledge more than anything. Let's say we design a first car, new platform more suitable for an aero package. For a small team, this can easily take two years if it includes new chassis, new suspension and new engine at the same time. Then, another year to adjust the new platform after testing and design a first iteration aero package. Then the year after then can come with a car with a sensible, data tested aero package on a platform designed for the purpose.

I don't have time for a full-blown rant, and this isn't directed at the author of the above quote.

But why is it that so many people these days,
SPEND SO MUCH TIME, DOING SO LITTLE!

Two years to design a "new platform more suitable for an aero package"???!!!

What (TF!) are you doing for all that time?

All that is required is one long day of everybody "brainstorming" the problem, another week to mull it over and maybe change some priorities, and then one more week to get the "General Assembly" drawings done! Then get stuck into the detail drawings, start making stuff, and get something driveable that can be tested as soon as possible. More detailed fine-tuning, some new parts, etc., can come later.

The root problem here is the lackadaisical education system, compounded by a world where everyone's stomachs are so full that their brains have stopped working. That is, it is considered perfectly acceptable these days to spend endless time and money on a supposed problem, with no real results to show at the end of it.

The whole point of FSAE is prove emphatically to you students that if you think that spending even 10 months playing "video games" is a good idea (ie. "optimising the design"), then when you get to comp with your "optimised" but UNTESTED car you will be shown to be complete and utter losers! Sadly, too many students these days seem quite happy with that.

Well, longer mini-rant than I intended, but how about some real progress...?

Z

[Canuck Racing]

Z - I couldn't agree more. I don't want to derail the thread but as I've said before if the proposed changes to use the cost report/business case come true and they integrate it into design, we should have a game-changing year. If done properly (and It'll take a few years for teams and judges alike to transition,) there will no longer be much of a "design" event, but rather a "design for a budget and manufactuarability and market" event.

You know, just like the REAL world.

[Francis Gagné]

*In a normal design cycle, I do include testing and validation time.



What (TF!) are you doing for all that time?
Z

(P.S. I know it's not personal, don't worry)

Reality of a disorganized, inexperienced, non-supervised small fsae team time split (my experience only) :

50% : Finding money/sponsors
30% : Learning/Relearning the basics (what you haven't been teached like, e.g., how to properly size a fastener/gears/etc., or calculating using vectors, or... list is long)
15% : Checking correcting your and others many errors/dealing with people egos
4% : Make a design, then get destroyed in a design review because you had no clue what you were doing.
1% : Doing work that actually help design/build/run the car, because now you have some prior experience.
0% : Properly documenting your design so that future students can benefit from your experience and not undergo the totally inefficient learning curve you had to go through.

It's all part of the learning process. It just takes about 100 times more time than from someone with experience, but that is also the goal. When you start being good enough at it, you get kicked out and need to find a job and are great at designing sewing machines and the like. I spent months doing rubbish work that went to scrap, but I learned a lot from it.


In an effort not to derail the thread :

I do think that including more the target market/price point in the design event is great.

[Will M]

get to comp with your "optimised" but UNTESTED car you will be shown to be complete and utter losers!

Z

I think the Japanese FS series requires some kind of proof that (video recording) be submitted about one month before comp to show that the car is running.
If you don't submit it you can't compete.
I don't have any proof for that claim though.

No reason why that can't be done for the other comps.

Personally I like the idea of having a 'first drive day'.
For example in the USA pick 10 to 20 universities spread across the country to host an autocross one month before comp.
There are ~100 US teams, so ~10 teams per event; and the Universities would be picked to keep travel time down.
There would be a short tech inspection and then each team gets a few runs.
I think it could be done in one long day for most teams, and few would have to stay the night.

I know things like insurance, liability, and getting volunteers could pose a problem for some areas but I like the idea :)

-William

[BeunMan]

If I remember correctly, FSE (FSG Electric) had something like that. Don't know if it was actually used or not.

You probably want 500-800 Km of running at least before your first competition. (that's about 30 enduro's + extra's). As you can do max. two to four a day and ~3 of those days a week you get about 4 weeks of testing before your comp. Take into account that your car WILL brake down and two months is about the minimum.

[TMichaels]

If I remember correctly, FSE (FSG Electric) had something like that. Don't know if it was actually used or not.


We indeed do this for FSC and FSE since two years and the number of cars actually running at the event shows that it works.

[Cunningham]

As the design season for 2015 is beginning, this thread should probably be revisited.

My team has generated a list reasons we feel are highly supportive of not implementing a spec aero package that we will be sending to the rules committee, but what I would like to discuss is how teams are supposed to start designing 2015 cars when potential major changes such as a spec aero package have yet to be defined? This is the time when we are planning fundamental decisions such as do we design the car for a very large/aggressive wing package and go all out in minimizing weight so that our single-cylinder can overcome the drag or do we not focus as much on weight because the spec package will have so little drag due to a smaller size that we have enough power.

Look at the 2014 F1 rules change where significant warning was given--teams needed most of last season to implement the changes on this season's cars.
Look at the TUDOR series--teams were handed new rules prior to the Daytona 24 without ample time to successfully implement the changes.

Which is better?

Hint, one is being touted as "leveling" the playing field to some degree and the other is being blamed for vast differences in competitiveness.

[SomeOldGuy]

I 100% agree that the 2015 rules should be out or about to come out.
More likely to see them in September though.

[mech5496]

There was some discussion of teams contributing in the 2015 rules decision process. Should we start a new thread with reasonable suggestions, so a prosperous discussion can take place?

[Michael Royce]

Harry,
Although the rules are usually not finalized until after the US and major European (read FS UK and FSG) competitions, I suspect that you are a bit late in sending in suggestions for the 2015 Rules, because I believe the Rules Committee has been meeting for some time now. You could always try, but the time for inputs was really before Christmas.

As far as designing a 2015 car is concerned, there is nothing as far as rules are concerned to stop you starting now, based on the following:
- The Rules Committee is well aware that some teams are on a 2 year design cycle.
- Traditionally, the teams have been given 21 months notice of any rules change that the Rules Committee believe will have a significant effect on basic design decisions. And I cannot see the Committee changing that policy.

And Cunningham, nowhere have I ever seen a proposal by the Committee to have a "spec aero package".

[ausracing]

I think Cunningham was referencing to these proposed rule changes:

Notice of Possible Rule Changes for the 2015 Formula SAE Series

This section is intended to provide teams with advance notice of possible changes to the Formula SAE Rules
that are being considered by the Formula SAE Rules Committee. Only changes that might have a significant
influence on a team’s design, manufacturing or operating decisions are listed.

The changes presented in this section are only possibilities and may not be implemented. This section is
provided as information and is not intended to be the final text of the rules under consideration.

It is anticipated that this section of the regulations will be updated later in 2013 after feedback is received on
these outline proposals. If any team has strong views on the proposals then please send your feedback to
www.fsaeonline.com. You may also email your feedback to kzundel@sae.org.

T15.5 Aerodynamics 1 – The committee is considering a change to the principle of the aerodynamic
regulations whereby they require the teams to think very carefully about the aero package that they choose. The
proposal is to achieve this by developing 3 sets of aerodynamic regulations and rotating the regulations every 2
years creating a 6 year cycle. This will ensure that most team members will only work with a specific set of
aerodynamic regulations for a maximum of 2 years and each team will have to develop their aero package from
first principles. The intention is to bring addition challenge to the competition for every student that takes part.
Feedback from teams on this proposal is welcomed.

T15.6 Aerodynamics 2 – The committee is considering adding wing supports to the SES to ensure that they
have adequate strength

[Cunningham]

Harry,

A thread might be good. Even if the rules have been decided as Michael believes, perhaps this could ensure a sufficient delay before roll out for the teams on a 2 year design cycle.

Ryan, that is what I meant by a "spec aero package." While I am sure a decent amount of freedom will be given in each set of regulations, I do fear that this is an inhibiting move for the series. Formula SAE fosters innovation through the ability of a team to work within a very wide set of rules. Highly constrained rules create innovation too, but it is usually of a much less dramatic nature.

[mech5496]

Cunningham, I am pretty sure that Mr. Royce does not simply thinks so... ;) However, I think that a "Rules suggestion" thread might be nice, as teams sometimes have interesting ideas, and I believe that significant contribution can be done as long as we keep it serious. Both Mr. Royce and Tobias have shown numerous times that they are open to suggestion, so why not do so?