Survey about new aero rules

[Bemo]

The FSAE rules committee published a proposal for revised aero rules which includes three sets of rules which are in valid for two years, creating a six year cycle.

They also started a survey about this proposal: http : / / www . survey monkey . com / s / P39BCXR

As there are quite a lot of people around who use every possibility to claim that all members of the rules committee are incompetent idiots (and worse) and think they know better, here is a possibility to objectively collect the opinions about this proposal before it gets valid.

[mdavis]

This is great, IMO. I think one of these should be created for all potential rules changes that have significant impact on vehicle design (the noise test change from 2014 also comes to mind). There was a lot more information in the survey than would make sense to put in the rules document. That helps everyone that is interested to be more informed about what the rules committee is thinking, and IMO, allows for a more informed response by the larger FSAE public.

-Matt

[Bemo]

The best thing about surveys like this is that a lot of people are usually surprised that their opinion isn't the same as the majority's opinion. Usually they blame the survey was manipulative and/or that the majority who voted were idiots :D

The new noise rules are a good example. Of course people who build cars which are highly affected by this don't like this rule, but there is absolutely no doubt that although they had the same values in noise test, the singles were much louder on the track than the fours. If you read a bit about the db rating methods that is no surprise as dbA is only meaningful for humen hearing up to a noise level of 40db. Using the A-rating for louder noises is just nonsense...

[JulianH]

I'm also interested to see the results.

Personally, I think the idea of cyclic rules is not very good. Larger teams can probably adapt much faster to a new rule set because they have knowledge, experience and the necessary tools to find a suitable concept quickly.
But it could be an interessting experiment to watch, what is going to happen if one major aspect of the competition would be changed for let's say 2 years.

Here I think, Aero is not the right choice "to play with" because Aero is just not that important. Yes, we have seen more and more Aero cars and yes, they are fast. But, it is just because nearly all really good teams are running wings at the moment. If we put the wings aside, I am quite sure that the Top10 at a large event would not look that much different than right now.
Aero makes your car a bit quicker and you are going to score a couple of points more than without them, yes. But so does Traction Control, so does Torque Vectoring, so does Recuperation, so does a CFRP monocoque. It is not a must-have feature.
Delft 2013 ran without a front wing, a tiny rear wing but still a screwed up aero balance and had one of the fastest cars at FSG. It does work without Aero!

Therefore I think other areas would be a more interesseting challenge if say nearly all teams had to develop a completely new suspension or if the point distribution would favor a different engine or if 4WD would be forbidden, and so on.

In my opinion (and a bit of experience), especially Aero is more about the tools and the methods that a team approaches than about "what is the best". I think the large Aero teams (Monash, GFR, Zurich, Maryland...) would be very quick to develop a new Aero package to any set of rules. Smaller, not so experienced teams would have a bigger problem to catch up. Therefore Aero is not the right choice in my mind.

Finally the proposed rulesets would really limit Aero as it is. Probably no wings would be seen on a lot of the cars because it would take much more time and resources to develop a Aero package that "breaks even" when it comes to performance and points. And then FSAE probably loses one of the "new" areas where students can learn a thing or two.

[mdavis]

The best thing about surveys like this is that a lot of people are usually surprised that their opinion isn't the same as the majority's opinion. Usually they blame the survey was manipulative and/or that the majority who voted were idiots :D

The new noise rules are a good example. Of course people who build cars which are highly affected by this don't like this rule, but there is absolutely no doubt that although they had the same values in noise test, the singles were much louder on the track than the fours. If you read a bit about the db rating methods that is no surprise as dbA is only meaningful for humen hearing up to a noise level of 40db. Using the A-rating for louder noises is just nonsense...

Bemo,

It is not correct (IMO) to compare single cylinder teams which openly admit to cheating the noise test with those that do not. Yes, there are single cylinder cars which are louder on track than they are in the noise test. The cars that are only slightly louder on track would likely be a result of a different engine tune (legal). The cars that are significantly louder on track than in noise did something else beyond a change in engine tune (exhaust plug, etc.). If you were at FSG last year, you saw at least 1 of these teams (likely more). 1 of the teams openly admitted to us last year how they get through noise, and I suspect (although I have no proof) that 2 other teams are using the same method to pass noise (these teams have either close regional contact, or have spent time together at unofficial competitions).

To me, it is not correct to punish teams who make legal changes to their car when there are a few teams that make illegal changes to their car and ruin it for everyone. For this reason, I have suggested testing for noise on track, if that is the noise that people want to complain about. Given that teams are cheating the noise test, there is no point to have it in tech (again, IMO) anymore.

-Matt

[Westly]

To condense my reply to the survey.

I believe regulating the design options is a poor way to develop the competition as it should allow as many options for the students as safely possible. If the organisers want to design new challenges they should do so by weighting events differently or changing the tracks. This would require the teams to go back to first principals and understand the trade off between drag, mass of the car, power, down-force and how all these factors affect their vehicle's performance in each event again.
The proposed aerodynamics changes don't change the points per kg of down-force so it is still as important. Its just limiting your options, simplifying the competition.

Further, I don't believe the dangers posed by large wings are as serious as those prevalent in other areas. The dangers posed by students trying to push the limits to design feather light components for example is more dangerous in my opinion and is widely rewarded by judges. Each competition seems to have a car lose a corner bouncing off the side of the track.

The tilt test currently does not identify roll-over stability issues, its intended purpose, which also appears a large concern of the organisers. See: http://tinyurl.com/pz62dao. This is a issue which affects all cars and doesn't appear to have any proposed changes?

The survey is a excellent idea, I do appreciate the organisers asking the wider FSAE community for input.

Westly Partridge
Curtin Motorsport Team

[Mbirt]

It is not correct (IMO) to compare single cylinder teams which openly admit to cheating the noise test with those that do not. Yes, there are single cylinder cars which are louder on track than they are in the noise test. The cars that are only slightly louder on track would likely be a result of a different engine tune (legal). The cars that are significantly louder on track than in noise did something else beyond a change in engine tune (exhaust plug, etc.). If you were at FSG last year, you saw at least 1 of these teams (likely more). 1 of the teams openly admitted to us last year how they get through noise, and I suspect (although I have no proof) that 2 other teams are using the same method to pass noise (these teams have either close regional contact, or have spent time together at unofficial competitions). I knew it! I know exactly which team you're describing. There's no way this team could have passed noise with only calibration changes. On track it had the same distinctive signature as a racing ATV--exactly what you would expect from its over the counter silencer from an aftermarket ATV/dirtbike application (which often have "quiet core" inserts available for riding in noise-restricted areas). Remember how loud it was at Formula North? It was a slap in the face after putting a considerable amount of work in to my team's silencer design to get the 450 under the noise limit without calibration or hardware changes just for the test. I would be disappointed to know that the other successful single-cylinder team from the region was doing the same, but last year was their first year running an OTC silencer after a student-built silencer cost them an endurance finish the year before.

Despite this injustice, Bemo is right. As much as those of us who have worked hard to legally meet dBA noise limits don't want the change to happen, dBC is the proper weighting for our sensitivity to frequencies of this sound level. An interesting question, however, is what is more important: the way we hear the frequencies under scrutiny, or protecting bystanders from them? A-weighting is used in the hearing protection realm--the quotes below are from the following link: http://www.howardleight.com/images/pdf/0000/0260/Sound_Source_4_AC_WeightedMeasure.pdf


"The C-weighting scale was originally designed
to be the best predictor of the ear’s sensitivity
to tones at high noise levels. Why, then, are
noise measurements for hearing conservation
almost always measured in dBA? Because the
ear’s loudness sensitivity for tones is not the
same as the ears’ damage risk for noise. Even
though the low frequencies and high frequencies
are perceived as being equally loud at high
sound levels, much of the low frequency noise
is actually being filtered out by the ear, making
it less likely to cause damage. The A-weighting
scale in a sound level meter replicates this
filtering process of the human ear."

"Several of hearing conservation’s key documents (including OSHA’s Hearing Conservation Amendment, and EPA’s
labeling requirements for hearing protectors) rely on dBC in determining noise exposures. Today, however, nearly
all noise measurements for hearing conservation are measured in dBA, resulting in misapplications and errors when
figuring attenuation from hearing protectors."

[mdavis]

I knew it! I know exactly which team you're describing. There's no way this team could have passed noise with only calibration changes. On track it had the same distinctive signature as a racing ATV--exactly what you would expect from its over the counter silencer from an aftermarket ATV/dirtbike application (which often have "quiet core" inserts available for riding in noise-restricted areas). Remember how loud it was at Formula North? It was a slap in the face after putting a considerable amount of work in to my team's silencer design to get the 450 under the noise limit without calibration or hardware changes just for the test.

Yes, I remember how loud the cars were at North. We could tell exactly who was practicing on 2 occasions based on the engine note, when we were inside the building in our paddock space. After that competition is when we found out about the rules breaking.

I would not consider the Kettering car to be loud at all, and it was a single cylinder that seemingly ran in the same configuration in Noise as it did on track. What were your thoughts on our car (Cincinnati), Matt? We ran about the same time you did in Lincoln, although IIRC, you were one of the enduro drivers, so you may not have paid all that much attention to other cars (and I don't blame you at all for that).

Again, I think the important thing is not what the engine does under 0 load (or near 0 load), but what it does under full load. This is why I support the on track testing method used by the SCCA.

-Matt

[Mbirt]

Yes, I remember how loud the cars were at North. We could tell exactly who was practicing on 2 occasions based on the engine note, when we were inside the building in our paddock space. After that competition is when we found out about the rules breaking.

I would not consider the Kettering car to be loud at all, and it was a single cylinder that seemingly ran in the same configuration in Noise as it did on track. What were your thoughts on our car (Cincinnati), Matt? We ran about the same time you did in Lincoln, although IIRC, you were one of the enduro drivers, so you may not have paid all that much attention to other cars (and I don't blame you at all for that).

Again, I think the important thing is not what the engine does under 0 load (or near 0 load), but what it does under full load. This is why I support the on track testing method used by the SCCA.

-MattHaha yes, I remember being astonished how clearly their exhaust note rang inside the hockey arena while they were in the practice area.

Thanks! That silencer passed noise at all three competitions without being opened for repacking or otherwise and it had lots of test hours on it before Lincoln. The headpipe was a reverse cone megaphone design with more "plenum" volume than your standard headpipe and the silencer featured a convergent conical core surrounded by continuous strand roving fiberglass. The only thing I would have changed would be to add an upward tailpipe bend to change how the straight tailpipe pointed at the tire and reflected sound waves to the noise test mic.

I might've been in a fire suit, but I was still in full engine guy mode! I'm sure I was thinking about other cars' muffler designs and power curve shapes more than I should have been. I've watched this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITrpOZGEv2I, plenty of times out of nostalgia. The Cincy car was definitely one of the quietest singles in my FSAE memory that did not use a stock muffler from a bike or quad (may God forbid that anyone have to use the stock peashooter to meet C-weighted noise). It definitely lacked the chest-pounding low frequency content that course workers find uncomfortable. I thought the resistive/reflective tuning going on with the silencer's choked outlet made it sound slightly metallic, but you've gotta do what it takes to meet noise when it comes down to it.

[Z]

As there are quite a lot of people around who use every possibility to claim that all members of the rules committee are incompetent idiots...

Bemo,

Thank you for providing yet more evidence of said "incompetence".

* For a start, I had a look at the proposed Rule changes last week, but now cannot access them again! (Can anyone please post them here?)

* Nowhere was there any clear DEFINITION of "aerodynamic devices". Nor of "bodywork". Nor of any distinction between the two. The closest they came (from my brief notes) is that aero-devices are things:
"... that can be considered to be ... can be interpreted to be..."
I doubt that it is possible to be MORE subjective or vague!

* "Rules B..." This mentioned something about suspension components NOT being subject to the "underbody" restrictions. So, what happens with UWA's "Aero-Beam"? Did anyone on the committee give any thought to anything they wrote???

* These Rule changes are clearly written by self-esteem-lacking, sad control-freaks, who want to micro-manage everything and be the boss of everyone. There is no point asking the students to design anything, because everything is spelled out for them in the Rules. And as for any grey areas in the Rules, well the students best not go there, lest they be banned for bringing a car that has bodywork (or suspension) that touches the wind!

* And lots of spelling mistakes!
~o0o~

If FS/FSAE is truly to be an educational event, then the worst thing to do is to have Rules that specify (= "design") the car down to the smallest detail. Instead,

LESS RULE CONSTRAINTS = MORE DESIGN FREEDOM = MORE SCOPE FOR STUDENT EDUCATION.

There should be no distinction between aero-devices and bodywork (or suspension components for that matter). And most of the "design constraints" should come from the track itself.

* Want proper suspension? Then put some proper bumps on the track!

* Want to limit maximum aero height? Then put a "bridge" over the track that the cars have to drive under.

* Want to limit maximum width or length of the cars? Then have "gates" that they have to drive through, and some real HAIRPINS (as specified in the Rules for 30 odd years, but very rarely used).

* Want better educated students? Then let them think for themselves.

* Want better Rules? Then only accept Rules Committee members who can THINK THINGS THROUGH!

Z

[Bemo]

I definitely agree that the rules are too vague and things have to be properly defined. There are enough unclear rules already.

Stuff like you suggest with having the cars driving through a gate or whatever if you want to limit things like height or width of the cars is something I can fully agree with. It's simple and there is nothing to discuss about. It fits or it doesn't - end of story. But in my opinion there is not a real necessity to limit the size of the cars in any way. The track layout gives the constrains (if you think about it). If you show up with a car which is too wide and/or long you will have a hard time on the course and that's it. As you said, if there is a max. width given it is very simple for the students to choose their track width as it is already given.

In general I'm also not a fan of the periodic change of the rules sets. In my opinion it makes the series a bit artificial (it feels like the stupid stuff in motorsports is done nowadays for "better show"). If they want to prohibit designs like this year's Ann Arbor car you could just modify the rule about what is considered to be "open-wheeled" (just increase the space which has to be kept free around the tires.

It's also a bit of a random choice to do this periodic change for the aero rules. You could also make a rule which sais that two years you have to use a 4cyl enginge than two years a V2 and then a single to force them to change the engine concept...

[Z]

The track layout gives the constrains ... If you show up with a car which is too wide and/or long you will have a hard time on the course and that's it.

Bemo,

Yes, this has been my point all along.

In Nature, it is the environment that shapes the species. Similarly, in FSAE the Rules can be very open with very few constraints (ie. only genuine "safety" Rules), yet the organisers can still "shape" the car by adjusting the tracks.

So:
* Track with lots of tight-and-twisty slaloms and hairpins = Car that is short, narrow, has lowest-possible-yaw-inertia, and probably also lightweight, non-aero, and low-powered because of low overall speeds.

* Track with mostly mid-to-high-speed sweeping corners = Car with mega-aero, and can be much longer and wider, with higher yaw-inertia, and probably needing higher power engine.

* Track with lots of bumps 3-10 cm high, with wavelength 1-10 metres = Car that MUST have good supple suspension, rather than having a suspension that LOOKS super sophisticated, but doesn't actually work because its springs are rock-hard!

For this approach to work the organisers would have to announce the track layout a year before comp. Or, perhaps, they could just say "Next year we will have a bit more "tight-and-twisty", and a lot more bumps...".

On the other hand, I think it would be particularly interesting if the different major comps around the world each had very different tracks in any given year. That way the "big teams" that attend many comps would have to build an "all-purpose" car so they can score reasonably in all comps, whereas the smaller "local" teams could build a "specialised" car that best suits their comp. Superstar team vs home-field advantage... Who wins? :)

Importantly, the Rules never have to change.

Z

[MCoach]

So:
* Track with lots of tight-and-twisty slaloms and hairpins = Car that is short, narrow, has lowest-possible-yaw-inertia, and probably also lightweight, non-aero, and low-powered because of low overall speeds.

* Track with mostly mid-to-high-speed sweeping corners = Car with mega-aero, and can be much longer and wider, with higher yaw-inertia, and probably needing higher power engine.

* Track with lots of bumps 3-10 cm high, with wavelength 1-10 metres = Car that MUST have good supple suspension, rather than having a suspension that LOOKS super sophisticated, but doesn't actually work because its springs are rock-hard!

For this approach to work the organisers would have to announce the track layout a year before comp. Or, perhaps, they could just say "Next year we will have a bit more "tight-and-twisty", and a lot more bumps...".

Z

So you mean to say that you want a Michigan road race -- because that perfectly describes the neglected, pot-holed, roads around these parts. We could do some mid to high speed sweeping corners with some up and down hill sections through the city, move it into the neighborhoods and parking lots for some tight twisty runs (still a many potholes) and then maybe hold accel on the highway (still just as many pot holes). :D

[BillCobb]

So you mean to say that you want a Michigan road race -- because that perfectly describes the neglected, pot-holed, roads around these parts. We could do some mid to high speed sweeping corners with some up and down hill sections through the city, move it into the neighborhoods and parking lots for some tight twisty runs (still a many potholes) and then maybe hold accel on the highway (still just as many pot holes). :D

D19, from Howell to Pinckney. Most fun in a 5-Series (E46).

[Kevin Hayward]

I like that there is an effort to gain feedback directly from the teams, but I feel there are a number of reasons that will almost invalidate the results.

Firstly, how are the results going to be treated given that they do not attempt to gain any information about the person entering the data. Some teams may not give a response, some teams will actively push members to respond in massive numbers. Unless careful data treatment is applied it will not show any true measure of whether these rules are generally accepted or rejected, even if there is almost universal agreement.

Secondly the questions are probably the wrong ones to ask. A set of rule change directions are presented, with little ability to discuss other options. Furthermore no requirement is made for survey responders to state why they agree for the changes. They only get to make comment if they disagree. This means limited scrutiny for the reasons on one side of the discussion.

My third point is that true feedback from the teams is discouraged by surveys. How about feedback is requested in the form of short reports dealing with the fundamental statements that can be made public and subject to peer review. Almost like a discussion forum ...

...

On the issue of whether the rules are well founded I believe that the reasons for introducing the rules are flawed, and do not appear up for discussion:

Reason 1:
It is often commented by judges, officials and others that have been involved in the various competitions for many years “wouldn’t it be great to change the rules to offer the students a new challenge”.

Flaw:
I have also heard many calls for rules stability. Some say one thing, some say another. The true mark of whether the students have an adequate challenge is if the teams and cars are uniform in design. I think we see the complete opposite of this in the competition. If anything the latest rule change to aero increased, rather than decreased variation. Addittionally there are new challeneges posed in the areas of hybrid and electric competitions. Frankly if a team feels that it is not challenged in FSAE it is wrong.

Reason 2:
A few of the better funded teams have done well with large wings that attempt to fully exploit the aero regulations, but it has been noted that many teams have followed down this path because other teams have been successful rather than because they understand how the benefits will be achieved.

Flaw:
The differences in aero packages is quite apparent, there does not appear to be a lot of whole-sale copying going on. While it is undoubtedly true that some teams lack understanding of why, that particular concern can be expressed in all areas of the car. Why does that team run 10" LCO's, why do they run a 450 single cylinder, why are they running double a-arms, Ohlins dampers, Drexler diff etc. I fail to see how a change to the rules will increase understanding within a team. I would also argue that wings are not necessarily linked to funding of a team. Unlike more expensive equipment such as Motec ECUs, Ohlins dampers, Drexler diffs, multiple sets of super soft tyres wings can be produced quite adequately with fibreglass at $10 a linear metre and wire cut styrofoam. Instead aero packages are much more closely linked to team size, and design capability. Surely we want to encourage areas of the car that influence teams to get more people involved, rather than buying off-the-shelf.

Reason 3:
It is likely that the aero regulations will need to change in 2015 as there are concerns that the wings are too large, several wings have detached from cars causing concern about the safety of marshals and some of the cars have become unstable such that in several cases they have almost rolled over.

Flaw:
No decent argument has been made that makes the point clear that aero cars are inherently more unsafe than non-aero cars. Such arguments can be made in the form of calculations / simulations or as an analysis of statistics of failure. I have seen 1 FSAE car rollover, it was a non-aero car, that went over due to absurd caster jacking and poor corner-weighting. I have seen numerous FSAE cars, both winged and non-winged cars lift inside wheels. I have seen more non-aero components detach than wings falling off. Although I would not want to trust my informal observations. I would rather look at hard data, and vehicle dynamics modelling. Frankly a good collection of inceident reports would be invaluable for the future of this competition. For example if you saw that fire occured much more often than wing failure you might mandate better fire prevention rules, or if suspension failure occured regularly you might start mandating minimum structural standards.


From a basis of argument if your reasoning is potentially flawed then it follows that your response is unlikely to be adequate. My personal take is that there are some good reasons to limit aero performance on the basis of limiting vehicle performance from a safety perspective, however these reasons have not been presented. Furthermore as Z mentions there are plenty of ways within the current rules of limiting performance through track design.

What I believe the initial feedback should have been about was to establish a reasoning framework that the aero regulations can be formed around. A discussion on the agreement on the fundamental reasons would be more productive than discussing options based on potentially flawed goals.

Kev

[Dunk Mckay]

As you say Kev, most justification for limiting wing size for safety concerns could be applied to many systems on the car (and in most cases are not). The only legitimate concern one could put forwards for wings, over any othetr system that could (and often have) fallen off. Is that very large wings are liable to do more damage if the hit someone. A debatable argument as any shattered piece of carbon the width of the car gong fast enough could do a lot of damage to a person, no matter the cross section, and size doesn't necessarily limit mass (heavier=higher momentum=higher injury) as a massive wing made with autoclaved prepreg carbon could weigh the same as a small wing over-engineered and made by wet-lay. But the argument does still stand up as while some large wings might be light enough to be relatively safe, you can't restrict the manufacturing method (not fairly anyway) so the only way to limit mass in worst manufacturing scanario, is to limit size.

So on that basis, from where I'm standing, size limitation for safety does stand up.

I do have as light concern with these suggested rules that they are forecast for 6 years at least. I was really hoping to see a much larger rules overhaul in that time. Pretty much everyone seem to agree that the rulebook is far longer than it needs to be to meet the overall objectives of the competition, or at least no one has argued that it should be made longer. Yet having 3 rule sets will make it longer. Yes so you can ignore the rules that don't apply, but it just more daunting lines of text for the newcomers and uninitiated, and that really does put them off! Why bother setting the rules for the next 2 years so far in advance, why not just change the rules, say that the aero rules will be fixed for two years, then during that 2 year period, see what people like, see what they don't, see where people perhaps need to be challenged more and come up with a new set for the following 2 years. Ideally a new set that intwertwines nicely with all the other new rules that have been brought in, replacing long cumbersome unclear rules with very clear, short but sweet ones.

[Murphy_49]

I have been working with FSAE Aerodynamics for four years and I agree with a lot of what is being said in this thread. I would say:


1. If the judges want to offer the students a new challenge (reason #1), the number of restrictions added should be complimented with equal or more restrictions lifted elsewhere to keep designs changing rather than boxing them in and causing everyone to bring the same car.

2. Copying other teams (reason #2) should not be a reason to change rules as it is accounted for in design. If a team is simply copying another team rather than designing the aerodynamic package themselves it will show when they present based off of what they know. As long as they understand everything behind the design and agree with the results and reasoning they are learning the necessary concepts. (This can’t be done without going through the entire process themselves)

3. The issue of reliability (reason #3) of the aerodynamic packages should not be addressed by limitations of design, but by structural validation. Much like the standardized tests a monocoque must meet.

[acedeuce802]

As mentioned previously, why only mention aero when talking about teams copying others designs? I agree that something needs to be done to try to force a more ground up design approach, but limiting the aero doesn't seem like a totally beneficial way to do this. I like the two methods already stated, one being to change the track. Right after Lincoln, it can be stated that the 2015 track layouts will have an average speed of 25 mph, or 45, or whatever, and different minimum corner radii. This will force teams to consider not only their aero redesign, but it will force overlooking the design of the entire vehicle. The other way would be to change point allocation. What if acceleration accounted for 200 points? Would teams show up with 7.5" rear tires, 6" fronts, and most of the weight on the rear wheels? Would teams go as far as considering switching motors? If fuel efficiency accounted for 250 points, would that alone drive the size of aero packages down? If cost were a 200 point event, would top end aero teams consider ditching the aero package all together?

[mech5496]

Adam, I totally agree, and this would force a bottom-up, back-to-basics approach, but it would also make the differences between the big teams and the smaller ones even bigger, as big teams with lot of resources have proven faster to adapt.


Would teams show up with 7.5" rear tires, 6" fronts, and most of the weight on the rear wheels?

We show up like this anyway.. :P

[Dunk Mckay]

What if there were two point systems on offer, and teams could choose which group they wanted to be put in upon registration? The standard points awarded would stay as they are, but an alternative points system would offer a greater number of points available.

Only a little more thought would be needed for track design. With two sessions, one running the usual track while the other runs similar track with a few modifications, such as making the track wider/narrower, adjusting slalom spacing, bypassing some corners but adding others (many real world race tracks have multiple layouts). The types of track changes that will be made would be announced earlier in the year along with the rules and point systems.

So there would be two types of teams: Those that don't have the capability to make drastic changes every year would be able to perform steady incremental gains with their vehicle design, as they should be now. And those that have much more of a challenge, but think they are up to the task. The rewards need to be greater for the incentive.

The two major problems I see with this are:
A. That a number of teams are going to chase the points when they don't have the capability and will just end up crashing and burning. So perhaps only allow teams to choose the alt points if they have finished endurance at at least 1 of their 2 most recent FSAE event attendances.
B. Balancing the points system could be difficult. Especially if it is changing each year. So what seems like a gamble based on the teams capability could just be a gamble based on how favourable the points system is. In this case I would suggest making the alternative points system results based, i.e. have some sort of equation that bases the points awarded on the best results from the standard rules (yay, another way to add more complications and debate!)

[MCoach]

Rather than a track change, how about the designation that the UK uses of class 1 and class 2, but give a simple rule set to each of them...but encourage innovation. I'm thinking LMP1 and GT style classes now.

So, going out on a limb here and improvising a little...

Class 2 is limited to the standard frame set, no aero, and something along those lines to keep the difficulty down -- maybe no structural composites including suspension as those seem to fail often. I'm thinking this is aimed at teams that are new to the series and those that are...not mature enough yet to figure themselves out.

Class 1, teams must use the SRCF (or maybe allowed to use) along with allowed structural composite components, aero allowed, basically how it is now. Maybe add the condition that a team must finish endurance at least at 1 competition before they are allowed into class 2.

Run them through the same events, same course, class 1 winners, class 2 winners, not directly competing against each other.

The only benefit I could see of a style like this is being able to change the rules for one level of competition without affecting the other. So, some of the discussion of aero could solve the dispute of how the newbies and those unable to compete on the same level of some of the high dollar, well organized, teams. Although, that would mean the overall rule book may grow, you, as a team,would be concerned about a smaller section of it. Some of it applies to you, some of it is not allowed to apply to you.

Just a thought, Dunk.

[JulianH]

I think this is all getting too complicated.
Different point schemes, even differnet classes. I think this is not the way to go.
If we would have "the small, easy class" and the "high-end, difficult class", we would further put a gap between "good, successful" and "not-so-good" teams. I think the goal is to push beginner teams to be able to compete on the level of all teams. If one would limit their choices, they will not learn as much and the difference in the level of knowledge in the teams gets wider and wider. It's like Supra at India: If you limit the engine choice to one, there is not much to learn about choosing an engine...
Even now, I feel that the "respect" of some team members of the successful teams for the small struggeling ones is very low. I think this would be even worse if we limit those teams to a "smaller, not so good" class.
We had the same problem with Class1A in the UK. The 2010 Zurich or the 2011 Delft cars were awesome and won Class 1A but still it was "just" a Class1A victory, there were some strange comments from the "big Class 1" teams that were not very respectful.


I like the idea of limiting the height of the cars (just make it a pass/fail Tech Inspection) and everything else stays like it is. If it would be possible for all competitions to publish a track layout when the rules are published, I even like the idea of developping tracks for Aero/big Aero/non-aero cars to give teams another challenge.
In Spain 2012 the track was veeery narrow and slow, I think Aero hurt more than it helped but at Austria 2012, the track was super fast and Aero friendly, Aero definitely helped there. Both tracks were within the rule set, so therefore it is not possible to say one choice or the other is correct.
If this is not possible that I think it is not within the intend of the rules to clearly favor one of the other design choice by designing a track where Aero cars "kill" everything or the other way round. Yes, it is "legal" to do 4-5-6-7 turns with minimum OD in a row to see how the cars get through and yes it is "legal" to do super-fast Aero corners all the way round and also it is legal to do uphill drag strips to destroy 1cylinder cars, etc. But it is not the intend of the rules, in my opinion...

[Dunk Mckay]

Rather than a track change, how about the designation that the UK uses of class 1 and class 2, but give a simple rule set to each of them...but encourage innovation. I'm thinking LMP1 and GT style classes now.

So, going out on a limb here and improvising a little...

Class 2 is limited to the standard frame set, no aero, and something along those lines to keep the difficulty down -- maybe no structural composites including suspension as those seem to fail often. I'm thinking this is aimed at teams that are new to the series and those that are...not mature enough yet to figure themselves out.

Class 1, teams must use the SRCF (or maybe allowed to use) along with allowed structural composite components, aero allowed, basically how it is now. Maybe add the condition that a team must finish endurance at least at 1 competition before they are allowed into class 1.

Run them through the same events, same course, class 1 winners, class 2 winners, not directly competing against each other.

The only benefit I could see of a style like this is being able to change the rules for one level of competition without affecting the other. So, some of the discussion of aero could solve the dispute of how the newbies and those unable to compete on the same level of some of the high dollar, well organized, teams. Although, that would mean the overall rule book may grow, you, as a team,would be concerned about a smaller section of it. Some of it applies to you, some of it is not allowed to apply to you.

Just a thought, Dunk.

I could definitely live with that. Although, I think it would probably be a good idea to include some additional limits on which class you could enter. So having completed endurance in at least one of the teams previous 2 or 3 competitions entered, as we've mentioned, to enter Class 1, but also teams that are consistently at the top of Class 2 shouldn't really be staying there, they should be pushed into Class 1. For example, if on average your team finished in the top 10% of class 2 in the previous season then you have to register for class 1. Changin back to class 2 is only an option if either you don't meet the endurance requirements, or you are in the bottom 10% of Class 1,

If anything this would push the teams that are capable to do more as they will be forced into class one and given a more difficult challenge. Whereas the class 2 teams won't overstretch themselves because they know they know they have less design work to do, so can work on getting their house in order. Yes there might be a bit of looking down on class 2 teams, but would that not simply drive teams to meet the reliability requirements as their number one priority? That would be a major win in my opinion. If we can go from less than 50% of teams completing Endurance to over 80% that would be a major gain for the credibility of the competition.

[Alumni]

The idea of two classes is very interesting and would make competition much more interesting for many more schools, but it only amplifies many of the current problems and complaints with the current rule set - are the rules there to provide a safe and educational experience or to try and balance the field competitively?

Everyone who has made it through the SAE design programs knows there are engineering competitions first and motorsports competitions second, so why can't the rules committee do their job and make them as such?

[Dunk Mckay]

Everyone who has made it through the SAE design programs knows there are engineering competitions first and motorsports competitions second, so why can't the rules committee do their job and make them as such?

So bias the points more towards the static event? Although this would probably mean even less well built/finished cars.

I'm curious as to people thoughts on changing the scoring system in dynamic events so that everyone competes against a fixed benchmark. For example, a preset average speed for AutoX and Enduro, one that isn't actually achievable, the closer you get the more points you get. At the moment if you finish outside a certain percentage of the winner you might get some token points. But that means as the best teams get faster and faster as they gain experience, knowledge, the fastest time gets lower and lower. Meanwhile all the new teams and the teams flapping about struggling to improve year on year (which often isn't their own fault) aren't getting any quicker, so more and more teams are being rewarded with diddely-squat. With a fixed target system a slow team still wouldn't get many points, maybe 20/300 instead of 3.5, so it isn't going to change anything overall, but they'll feel more recognised, after all they did build a reliable enough car to finish endurance, so they deserve more than just a wooden spoon.

[Canuck Racing]

Dunk,

Are you suggesting that the competition revolve around designing, building, and operating a quick yet simple car that an average Joe weekend autocrosser might be interested in?

This could change everything...

[acedeuce802]

Dunk,

Are you suggesting that the competition revolve around designing, building, and operating a quick yet simple car that an average Joe weekend autocrosser might be interested in?

This could change everything...

The spirit of SAE!

[Swiftus]

On the other hand, I think it would be particularly interesting if the different major comps around the world each had very different tracks in any given year. That way the "big teams" that attend many comps would have to build an "all-purpose" car so they can score reasonably in all comps, whereas the smaller "local" teams could build a "specialised" car that best suits their comp. Superstar team vs home-field advantage... Who wins? :)

Z

Z -

I have been to a few of the major competitions around the world which means that even if I have not personally experienced all of the competitions, I have spoken to many students from teams all around the world about their 'local' competitions. The tracks already vary widely because of other circumstances.

- Michigan is very flat, very straight, very fast, and very dusty.
- Lincoln is as bumpy as a 13 y/o's acne-ridden face and can be super windy (unstable conditions for a big-aero team).
- UK likes to be wet and the track surface changes over the course.
- Germany has its 'jumps' and a couple of pits in the course (sealing aero and jumps are not friendly).
- Austria has off-camber corners, hills, and can rain in an instant.
- Spain is reportedly one of the twistiest tracks ever devised to be within the constraints of the rules and is very hot (not good for big wings).
- Italy is a crapshoot as far as how wide the track will be.
- Australia is done on courses with crests, dirt, and no runoff.

The tracks already vary pretty greatly (sometimes a bit more than the rules intend). I know that our team has different aero, suspension, and powertrain setups (and often components) for every competition we attend. Adding to the complexity with rules which vary every year wouldn't toss up our teams development since we have to make developments for each competition, but I bet it will hurt the 'local' teams who are not as lucky as we are.

[mdavis]

- Michigan is very flat, very straight, very fast, and very dusty.
- Lincoln is as bumpy as a 13 y/o's acne-ridden face and can be super windy (unstable conditions for a big-aero team).


Given that these are the only 2 that I have personally competed at, I can only comment on them. The other big difference is the surface. Michigan is sealed pavement, Lincoln is old concrete (very gritty, eats tires, and requires a completely different driving style at least in our car). I would imagine that several of the other tracks have similarly different surfaces. The "bumps" at Lincoln all seemed to be ~1" in amplitude, and they were about every 50', at several various angles to the track.

-Matt

[Dunk Mckay]

- UK likes to be wet and the track surface changes over the course.
- Germany has its 'jumps' and a couple of pits in the course (sealing aero and jumps are not friendly).

UK has, in the past, had different racing surfaces in one track, going form asphalt to concrete to painted concrete and back, crossing rumble strips mid corner...
Germany goes from paddock surface (car park?) onto race track asphalt and back.