Proposed delay for 2015 rules to 2016 [Archive]

Kevin Hayward

08-17-2014, 10:56 AM

I started this post with the knowledge that some of the rules committee read these forums, and may benefit from some feedback.

I suggest that the proposed rule changes for 2015 should be delayed until 2016 for the following reasons:

- There are a number of rules that affect the conceptual design of a lot of cars, and they are being released with less than 9 months before the comp they will be first used in.

- The delay will mean that the 2016 rules will have been released much earlier than normal. This has the following advantages:
- Teams from Japan and Australasia will be able to travel with the cars they are designing now, and will not create the same problem for 2016
- Sufficient time is available for feedback and revision of the rules if necessary. (I think this could be important given the magnitude of changes)
- It allows for plenty of time to work on the next revision (2017 rules)

- There is time to deal with differences the rules committee appear to be having within the committee (i.e differing rules for Germany vs other comps)

This request is not being made in order to change the proposed rules, or direction of the rules committee. The FSAE / Student community itself is split on whether they are a good idea or not. As long as all teams compete to the same rules we are still likely to have good competition. The ideal concept may change, some teams will win out some will take a hit.

I do feel that there are two points we can agree on:

- Rules should be released in their final form prior to teams beginning conceptual design. This should be more than 12 months before the first comp they will be used, ideally 18 months or so to allow international teams to be able to effectively plan ahead (i.e. change concept to suit planned international comp)

- Rules should be written clearly and objectively. No team wants to get caught out at scrutineering because either there is no clear scrutineering guidelines for the new rules, or because the scrutineer has a different interpretation of the rules.

Finally, before offering this post up for discussion I wish to make the statement that I am not making any form of negative comments towards the rules committee or anybody on it. It is a difficult job with a large number of stakeholders.

Lets try and keep this post civil and constructive. Please post on here whether you support or object to the delay of the proposed 2015 rules until the 2016 season. Offer constructive comments and lets hope it engages people on the rules committee.

Regards,

Dr Kevin Hayward

Faculty Advisor
Edith Cowan University (2008-present)
Team member at UWA Motorsport (2001-2005)

mech5496

08-17-2014, 12:51 PM

Kevin,

I fully support your proposal; not because I like or dislike the direction of the rules, but mainly because the time to implement those changes is too short. I agree that rules should be posted at least 12 months before the first comp in order for the teams not to "lose" a season. Moreover I would add that the whole rulebook should be cleared; new aero rules showed some perspective in that direction by removing some unnecessary bits, but then they are still too subjective as Z and others pointed out. Why not simply define "green boxes" where the teams are allowed to place wings/undertrays etc. instead of defining "red" keep out zones as I have pointed out earlier on? Rulebook would be much clearer and smaller...

Dylan Edmiston

08-17-2014, 01:41 PM

I do not fully support this. There are some rules that have HUGE affects on all teams (aero) and even larger affects on those teams that have already designed their cars and plan on going overseas to compete in Michigan. However, there are perhaps some smaller rules that can take affect this year that won't prevent teams from having to redesign major parts of their car or perhaps even do a redesign at all. The first thing that comes to mind regarding that is DBW (something I'm hoping for). That is something that won't require a team to do a redesign for legality (their existing cable system should still be legal) and if they wish to benefit from it they will only have to do a small redesign. Regardless if the rules were released earlier or not, they still would have had to do this, but they don't have to go to this system.

The shocking part to me is that the rules committee has essentially had two years to get this done. It is in everyone's nature to push things off until it has to be done because of more immediate things that have to be dealt with, but they should have been aware of the concern teams would have with changes like this being released so late.

apalrd

08-17-2014, 01:51 PM

I too have been waiting for the 2015 rules so I can implement our electronic throttle system (which is extremely successful on our snowmobiles) on the FSAE car.

There are several big powertrain rule changes which have been proposed and are being eclipsed by the huge aero rule changes - the ETC throttle and turbo restrictor placement can greatly change the design and concept of many powertrain packages, as they enable many other things.

Maybe we should push the aero changes off another year and debate the rest for this year?

John_Burford

08-17-2014, 04:08 PM

Please correct me if I am wrong. I recall the FSAE rules being released August each year. Hasn't it been the same August release for 20 years?

John_Burford

08-17-2014, 04:23 PM

Kevin

Perhaps the best to frame your suggestion would be to define the rules committee of a steering committee. The steering committee generates directional guidance like:

- Improve side impact survivability for monocoque chassis
- Decrease performance gap between aero and non-aero cars.
- Increase selection of engines for the benefit teams who have few options in the native counrty.
etc.

The students as individuals or as groups can then research and recommend specific rules.

Kevin Hayward

08-17-2014, 06:24 PM

Please correct me if I am wrong. I recall the FSAE rules being released August each year. Hasn't it been the same August release for 20 years?

John,

For most of the last 20 years there have not been considerable conceptual changes to the rules. Usually these changes were announced well ahead of time with some decent definition of the wording. It is also useful to note that the larger changes have been increasing in frequency in later years.

I will also note that this is not the first time the timing of rules has created problems for international teams traveling, or by affecting conceptual design late into the process. Each time these events occur there is a fair bit of complaint.

Having a history of releasing in August is not a good reason for continuing to do it that way.

Again I have no issue with the particular rules. Generally the opening of rules (i.e allowing electronic throttles, increasing engine selection) does not cause issues. If a team does not take advantage of the changes it doesn't matter nearly as much as when they have to quickly change concepts well into their design phase.

I don't want to discuss the changes point by point here. I like some of the changes, dislike others. All teams compete to the same rules, and as long as they are clearly and objectively written everyone is in the same situation. I do think it is handy to workshop the ideas to better consider the implications of the changes, and maybe this is an area that the community can be more engaged with. Maybe even something formal like releasing rules prior to the season and quizzing teams in the design event about how they would change their concept / car according to the new rules. Teams could be encouraged to bring simulation results / details of proposed designs.

Dylan and Andrew,

Apart from noticing that neither of your teams will be negatively affected by the rule changes (i.e. non-monocoque, non-aero, non-electric), do you believe that the best situation is to release the rules less than 9 months before your competition? Remembering that next time around it could be electronic throttles that are banned, or significantly modified.

...

I also want to state that this time around the university I am involved with does not have any problems with the timing of these rules. There are no plans to travel in 2015, so these rules come in time for us to design for Australia without issue. I will note that our trip to the UK in 2013 was cancelled due to minor (and unannounced) changes to the chassis rules that invalidated our car built for the 2012 Australian comp. So while we aren't affected this time around, we have been in the past.

As to how we fare in the new rules; the students have done a bunch of simulations, and given our current base car we should still be fine in the new rules. In fact these changes provide an advantage for our current concept over some of our main competitors. If I was advocating for my team (at the expense of others) I would be in support of these rule changes and have no issue with the timing.

Regards,

Dr Kevin Hayward

Faculty Advisor
Edith Cowan University (2008-present)
Team member at UWA Motorsport (2001-2005)

Dylan Edmiston

08-17-2014, 06:58 PM

J

Dylan and Andrew,

Apart from noticing that neither of your teams will be negatively affected by the rule changes (i.e. non-monocoque, non-aero, ...), do you believe that the best situation is to release the rules less than 9 months before your competition? Remembering that next time around it could be electronic throttles that are banned, or significantly modified.

Please expand on how my team is not negatively affected by those rules changes more than other teams trying to design those systems ;).

Also, notice that I said I do not fully support it, meaning I partially do. I am in favor of your idea for big changes like aero, but I'm sure there are smaller changes that can still take place (none of us are aware of all the rules they plan to change, so unfortunately we can't discuss this in detail beyond aero rules). On top of that, even if my team wouldn't be negatively affected by something, does that make my opinion invalid? I really hope not.

edit: I think we can agree the teams that are hurt the most by these are the oversea teams. Although the rules release has delayed my team's design work, we aren't having to redesign a car in the same season to compete at Michigan, unlike the oversea teams. It'd be a shame to see plenty of them not come to the 2015 FSAE-M comp because of these rules. As you said Kevin, my team would benefit (placement wise) from these changes due to loss of competition, but that's not how I want to see my team do well. It's not rewarding.

StevenWebb

08-17-2014, 08:18 PM

I would be against pushing the rules back 1 year, as it is against the rules!
in the rules introduction

"This introduction normally highlights areas of the 2014 Formula SAE rules that teams should understand and
consider. However from 2013, the FSAE rules have moved to a 2 year rules cycle such that only on odd
years will major changes be made to the regulations.
For the 2014 FSAE rules, most changes are small corrections or clarifications except for the EV regulations
where the changes are more extensive since these regulations were new for 2013. Any changes can be
identified by text that is in italics. "

So by changing this, it may screw up teams with multi-year strategies/plans for competing overseas. In many ways it's a BIGGER rule change than the technical rules themselves. I'm all for 2017 though :) .

As for the late rules, reduction of wing size has been on the cards since 2012 (i thought it would happen in 2013) so conceptually it should have been on the radar for a lot of teams. Compared to 2011 when big aero was introduced at a similar time of year with no warning which made me doubt the single cylinder I had already started designing for. Of course this is no excuse for the pathetic timeline that the release of rules has been following for as long as I've been around. I'd like to see a firm release date to be set in the rules from now on to be added to the "potential changes" list

Maybe the rules committee needs to work more like the teams. Aim for a good management structure and transfer of knowledge while they design the rules, 3 months of testing before they are released, simple and reliable rules... and at each competition they have to explain and justify their rules to the "judges" from each team, explain how this will effect the cost of producing a car and make a presentation of how the rules will effect sponsors and the sustainability of the cars? A video submission of the rules will need to be submitted to prove they are complete enough before the release date for any rules which effect FSG.

In summary
Do I think rules changes should be pushed back 1 year? - NO
Are September releases of rules acceptable? - NO
Should something be done so this doesn't happen again in 2/4 years time? - YES

StevenWebb

08-17-2014, 08:24 PM

Ahh, the memories

http://s17.postimg.org/4e89pz45b/History_Repeating.jpg

Claude Rouelle

08-17-2014, 09:21 PM

Doctor Kevin Hayward,

Instead of and/or in addition of this post why don't you address your request directly to the rules committee? Or maybe you already did....

apalrd

08-17-2014, 09:23 PM

Electronic throttle control is a critical enabler for a lot of our efficiency optimization (and we do work hard on that, as shown by us winning Lincoln fuel efficiency two years in a row), I wouldn't say we aren't affected by the rules changes. There's always the chance that we've been planning on 'jumping into' a largely carbon chassis, or wings, etc. And, personally, I would like to see ETC implemented before I graduate.

Development takes a lot of time, the sooner we can get changes out the better prepared everyone will be. We've been waiting an extra year for these changes now and we're all anxious to start designing to the exact rules.

Kevin Hayward

08-18-2014, 02:45 AM

Doctor Kevin Hayward,

Instead of and/or in addition of this post why don't you address your request directly to the rules committee? Or maybe you already did....

Claude,

I am aware of others working with the rules committee with similar goals, and have added my comments to those communications. However I think it is good to discuss the issues amongst the community, preferably openly and without hostility. I don't think I would do any better in the same position as the rule committee members. Even minor changes to the rules can have fairly large implications to some teams. I started this thread so people here could voice support or objection to the rules release schedule, providing reasons why.

If there is consensus here then I would pass it onto the committee, although they would have likely seen it already. If the opposite is true then I would be doing the community a disservice by trying to push my view ahead of theirs.

...

Summary at this stage (as far as I see it)

- ETC guys want the change, but still have been waiting for the exact wording to get going on detailled design.
- Some agreement that the allowable time between rules and conceptual design is too short, but noting there has been a precedent of it.
- The suggestion that maybe the aero rules should be shifted back to enable debate, but other rules allowed
- Definition of what the rules committee's job is with regards to steering the competition
- Statement that the rules state major changes every 2 years, and changing them radically next year would be against the current rules. (Suggested delaying the bigger rules until 2017)
- Suggestion to put an firm release date into the "potential changes list"

As far as I can see nobody has expressed a preference for maintaining the late release of the rules (i.e. August).

Steven had some great points. Maybe the approach is not to delay these particular rules, but to setup a process for making sure we don't have a repeat of this in 2-4 years time. A simple shift of rules release to say January or February of the given year would allow the overseas teams (already well into conceptual design) enough time to change path. A rules ammendment could be scheduled for August to deal with any severe safety concerns that may have been raised in the comps, but would not deal with conceptual changes.

Regards,

Dr Kevin Hayward

Faculty Advisor
Edith Cowan University (2008-present)
Team member at UWA Motorsport (2001-2005)

Scott Monash

08-18-2014, 06:41 AM

I would definitely support delaying these significant aero rules changes.

It is unfair to expect that US teams can react to changes of this magnitude and still design and build their cars for FSAE East in only 8 months.
Such large changes also discourage/prevent European teams from competing in Detroit next year.
They also effectively prevent Australian teams from travelling to the US or Europe next year.
We had no plans to travel next year, but I know that Curtin definitely did, and those plans have now been dashed.

Teams should note, that the current rumour from the IRC (via the recent proposal) is that these aero changes will be permanent rather than rolling in a 2 year cycle.
A permanent rule set definitely makes more sense, but only provided we get it right (or very close) the first time.
So Steve Webb some of the problems that you identified are no longer an issue, if we don't have rolling changes.

There has long been talk of giving teams adequate time to digest new rules before they come into effect.
As Kev suggests, teams definitely need (and should be entitled to) 18 months notice of proposed changes.
And not vague "suggestions" of changes, but the actual written and final rules.
This obviously hasn't happened in this case.

Furthermore, it makes sense for the IRC to release proposals and actively seek and take on board the suggestions of teams in this process.
This should happen in an open and transparent way, and these forums would provide the perfect vehicle to host such discussions.
It is silly not to leverage the experience and know how of the student and faculty community.
It would also help to eliminate any obvious loop holes or problems from these new rules.
I believe that the broader FSAE/FStudent community is mature and responsible enough to make constructive contributions to this process and help ensure the long term health of the competition globally.
We are after all the biggest stakeholders/customers.
I think teams and faculty deserve several seats at the table when these rules are decided.
Much of the frustration with the current proposed changes stem from the lack of student input, transparency and accountability with this process.

I should probably mention at this point that I have been in communication with the IRC, after reaching out to our local representative.
I was only able to make this connection due to being on the FSAE Organising Committee in Australia.

When we saw the proposed Aero rules changes I noticed some pretty big loop holes.
Also some serious flow on effects to chassis design, driver egress, and the safety of high mounted aero devices.
Many other teams have noticed them too.
With input from many other local and international aero teams we developed a revised proposal.
Given these rules would become permanent we wanted to try and get them right, whilst also minimising the immediate impact on teams designing for May 2015.
We presented these to the IRC a week ago via our local contact.
At this stage we are unsure how our suggestions were received and what if anything will change in the final version.

I will start a separate thread to post these suggestions and also take feedback from the community.
With enough support from teams there may still be a chance for the IRC to consider them.
If changes MUST be made we think these rules are a much better compromise.

But, as I stated up the top we really should not be making any changes this late in the piece.

Better to keep the rules as they are for 2015 and start an open and frank discussion between the IRC and teams to properly shape any new rules for 2016, with release in Jan 2015 at the very latest.

Scott

Alumni

08-18-2014, 07:26 AM

It seems to me that every year the rules come out a week later than last, and that has added up considerably to our current position.

I agree that there should be a more set-in-stone date for the rules to come out, however, January/February as many have suggested is not realistic. I would say some time, perhaps 2 weeks after FSG would be good. The IRC will never be on board with releasing rules prior to major competition, less somebody such as U of M Ann Arbor show up and make a mockery of them for two years instead of only one. In addition, you never know when a legitimate safety concern could be raised at a competition and have a need to be addressed.

I also am not on board with a 2-year cycle. As nice as it sounds, if say, one year there were flawed aero rules (just as an example...) you are then stuck with them for another year.

As far as delaying this year's rules: I agree with Jon that as of now the rules are not any later than previous years. If it were mid-september and we were having this debate, we would have a much more legitimate argument on our hands. Of course, by that time most teams would be out of luck either way.

Dylan Edmiston

08-18-2014, 08:35 AM

Another suggestion (for aero):

Have less strict aero rules for 2015 (with either a planned change for 2016 or keep it in the full two year cycle for a rules revision in 2017). Just because we are on a two year cycle for rules doesn't mean there can't be a change between the two years if something is flawed (directed towards Alumni's statement). However, the RC should still plan on getting a rules release out sooner. Perhaps release a draft immediately after Michigan, get input from teams, then plan for a full rules release a month later (at least by the end of June).

Less strict aero changes (for the rear wing) could be something along the lines of keeping the height restriction but losing the width restriction or increasing the allowed width to the centerline of the tyres. Not as bad, but it could still be a big change to some teams.

In regards to rules release date, if my memory serves me correct, in 2012 we had a rules draft (for the 2013 season) released mid Summer. This was a full rules draft, not just aero! On top of that, here is a statement in the draft:

"This draft of the 2013 Formula SAE Rules is released for review and feedback."

With that, the review period ended June 30th, 2012 and the final version was released August 19th, 2012. And here we are, August 18th, 2014 with only a section of a draft for the 2015 season. What happened?!?

MCoach

08-18-2014, 09:39 AM

I wouldn't mind if the rules were released in such a way that the above mentioned comment of testing/simulating of what the proposed effects will be along with a subjective study on how this will affect the broad field of current competitors as well as the attraction of new competitors (if applicable) rather than knee jerk reaction.

Example:
At least 3 vehicle fires at Lincoln? Why focus on flammable material containment? That's what fire resistant materials and extinguishers are for!
Wings that collapse at speed? Oh no, we cannot have that.
Somebody came with a poorly designed unsprung rear wing to FSG and literally wrote "Wobble Wobble" on it... Nope, no good, might as well ban that altogether.
2" of suspension movement, 1" bump, 1" droop? Why not 2" bump and 0"droop? Oh, dear, looks like The Department of Silly Go Karts is here. (might be digressing here a bit...)

With the current release staging and date of the rules, rules are supposed to be static for two year intervals, but they are released when those changes are supposed to take effect. Which means rules come out in the 2015 season, that now announces changes for the 2015 season. Rules come out in August with new material in them for the competition in 8 months? Hey guys, time to scrap the car because it was just made fundamentally illegal or noncompetitive and we're already done with the frame...

What would make more sense to me is this: the 201x rules only contain changes that will take effect two years out, in this case 2015 release changes would take effect 2017. That way there is sufficient time to plan and adjust international travel plans as well designs for future cars.

With the current structure, We start designing our car in April-May, depending on how close the current year car is to completion. To think that we should wait until the last week of August to finally figure out our concept structure, reconsider the new possibilities of the introduction of the exact rules changes, and then start building seems pure lunacy. The past few changes haven't been that large of a concept changer for most teams, but if I understood the level of design and integration that I do now back in 2009, I might have thrown an equal fit over the template rules and the seemingly open interpretation given by the rules but relatively strict implementation by the scrutiny workers as I recall being a young lad. With this set containing some of the largest and multi-system changes seen in a long while, my team is still meeting on what to do based on what may be in the new rule set, setting up some testing to evaluate new concepts that may be given the green light here soon.

On a semi-relaed issue that I don't want to address extensively, if much at all in this thread, but has been discussed is interaction with the RC, my experience is as follows:
Submissions to the Rules Commitee seem to go un-replied. Having known or currently in local contact with several members on the rules committee, the members don't seem to want to discuss any possibilities other than their pet peeves of the formula rules they each have been trying to push for a while whether it be "I like the sleek cars the best, but these wings rules make them so gaudy and ostentatious; we should make them all look more like the old Stuttgart car again." or "I don't like how exotic materials have pervaded the current vehicles, so we should put more emphasis on cost, that will fix that" or "I don't think anyone is FSAE is advanced enough to know how to use things like ETC because my team wasn't when we participated and it only makes the competition more dangerous" These are things I've been in discussion about and only pulled a few I thought would get a reaction out of you guys (trying to capture the quotes as close as memory can serve) so don't think that all rules are this unfounded or whimsy, just that sometimes they are not scientifically guided.

Alumni

08-18-2014, 05:47 PM

...if I understood the level of design and integration that I do now back in 2009, I might have thrown an equal fit over the template rules and the seemingly open interpretation given by the rules but relatively strict implementation by the scrutiny workers as I recall...

This just jogged my memory and brought up an interesting and perhaps very relevant concept. I don't remember the exact wording or points structure, but the year the templates were first used (2009 IIRC) they were indeed a mess, and very open to interpretation. However, whether it was because the IRC recognized this, or that teams with currently designed cars (including those overseas such as the Aussies and Germans) would have their designs immediately obsoleted, a grace period was allowed. Thus, for 2009, cars that did not pass template were allowed to run, but received a 35 point deduction in design. For 2010, all cars had to pass.

Perhaps there could be a similar compromise this year?

EDIT: Yes, yes here it is on page 27: http://www.mec.sojo-u.ac.jp/formula%20page/2009fsaerules.pdf

stever95

08-18-2014, 09:24 PM

I think some form of a delay is the best way to move towards a transparent process.

"Clearly" it is not so.

Charles Kaneb

08-19-2014, 10:27 PM

Alumni,

U of M - Ann Arbor did not make a "mockery" of the aero rules. They developed a system that obeyed the letter and spirit of the rules, and it worked well enough for their car to go about as fast as the rest of the front-runners at FSAE-Lincoln 2014.

I think that a 9-month design cycle's long enough. It forces compromises in part design to meet the schedule, like any vehicle program in Detroit.

Kevin Hayward

08-19-2014, 11:24 PM

Charles,

Not to try and be too much of a smart-arse but maybe using Detroit product development processes wouldn't be the best idea :)

For the Australian teams the rules release date allows them only 3 months before the first comp the car will be run in. Oz teams use their 2014 car for 2015. this is true for other travelling teams as well. As far as I am aware most of the European teams do the same to compete in the US.

For most of the history of FSAE travelling teams wasn't an issue, and the rules release date probably had no problems. For Australian teams they get about 15 months between the rules release and the local comp. FSAE programs in Unis were smaller (which meant less students engaged) and often not well integrated into coursework. Add to that the rules were quite static for a large period of time. I remember speaking to people on the rules committee who were frustrated because the rules were difficult to change.

Now with a large international focus, larger teams, better integrated programs (all of which improve the outcomes) and rapidly changing rules there may be a basis to change this practice.

I agree that Ann Arbor did a good job of development. It wasn't a "mockery", just good engineering design. FSAE is full of innovative and hard working people. Throw enough of them at a problem and you end up with unintended consequences of the rules. This is one of my main issues with ensuring there is time to get feedback from teams on the implications of the rule changes.

I will remind everyone of this thread:

http://www.fsae.com/forums/showthread.php?5117-New-Aero-Packages-for-2011-Rules

At the start of the era of big aero there were quite a few people saying "treat this seriously" and "everyone will be doing it". This was met with comments about loss of points in cost, fuel, accel etc. In the end I'm not sure we ended up with what the rules committee had fully intended when they made the first big aero change. Just as now there will be implications to the rule changes that are not fully appreciated, and there is no time to discuss and revise them if there are big loopholes.

Not to side track this post, but I actually agree with limiting the performance of aero, and the EVs. I just think for such a major change it was far too late before teams were informed of what sort of changes would be made.

Regards,

Dr Kevin Hayward

Faculty Advisor
Edith Cowan University (2008-present)
Team member at UWA Motorsport (2001-2005)

AxelRipper

08-20-2014, 09:42 PM

I think the same people complaining about wings being reduced now are the same ones cheering when the wings were made massive 3 years ago. There has been a lot more talk of the aerodynamics this year than there was back then IIRC. Back then the rules came out and suddenly MASSIVE WING AREA. This year, a month or 2 ahead of the rules coming out the rules committee released the rules so everyone had extra time to plan for it. This should not be detrimental to anyone. If you wish to compete in FSAE-A this winter, the 3 months after that competition before Michigan should be more than enough time to chop your wings down and retune for it. Your base car already exists, and the aero rules will already have been out for several months. Consider FSAE-A your last hurrah and then move on.

And the same thing does happen in the real world. Just happened to us coming to a test for next year's rule package. 2 weeks lead time on what the changes would be for the test, and half an hour to get the setup "right" before a simulated race. At over 200 mph. That's about as extreme as it can get, but the moral is you'll face sudden changes. As far as sudden changes go this is pretty far in advance.

theTTshark

08-21-2014, 10:23 AM

And the same thing does happen in the real world. Just happened to us coming to a test for next year's rule package. 2 weeks lead time on what the changes would be for the test, and half an hour to get the setup "right" before a simulated race. At over 200 mph. That's about as extreme as it can get, but the moral is you'll face sudden changes. As far as sudden changes go this is pretty far in advance.

Oh come on dude. Comparing what we can do in NASCAR in respect to FSAE is just ridiculous. We have far more money, far more people, and far more tools and knowledge to pull it off. Plus we don't have to go to school as well when this is all happening. This is an extreme case in respect to FSAE.

apalrd

08-21-2014, 01:47 PM

Oh come on dude. Comparing what we can do in NASCAR in respect to FSAE is just ridiculous. We have far more money, far more people, and far more tools and knowledge to pull it off. Plus we don't have to go to school as well when this is all happening. This is an extreme case in respect to FSAE.

On the extreme flip side, the auto industry has a hard time dealing with regulations that come out 2 years before they go into effect. With a lot more money and people than a NASCAR team. On one project in particular, we were concerned with meeting just-released model year 2016 emissions (in early calendar year 2014), because making engine hardware changes, recalibrating, and validating takes so long. So I don't think asking for at least 9mos for changes that can completely change an FSAE concept are unreasonable, especially when they drastically change a lot of team's concepts.

Westly

08-22-2014, 12:39 AM

AxelRipper

08-22-2014, 07:15 AM

Sure late change changes requiring quick action do occur in reality, but it is usually the consequence of poor planning or a mistake being rectified and that reflects poorly on the competition. Especially from an organisation which is supposed to be mentoring and teaching future engineers.

Further, the results for 2014 show that the majority teams cannot reliably produce a car in 12 months with unchanged rules as it stands. FSUK, Michigan and FSG the enduro completion rate was 24%, 32% and 36% respectively. Late changes will only hinder the competition further. A poor finishing rate such as this does damage the respect and credibility of the competition too in my opinion.

Westly.

But at the same time if you reduce the aero packages to make it less tempting for teams to just slap another untested thing that might fail onto the car so they can focus on the basics (which they *SHOULD* be doing anyways, but everyone knows doesn't happen because we're engineers and OOH SHINY) then shouldn't reliability increase? I seem to remember a few years ago the completion rate at MI being around 40%. What changed? And this rule isn't really a shock to the system. It has been in the cards for a while, and most schools are barely back in session yet. If the program is a senior design project at a certain school, the planning phase may not be started yet. Yes some of us went year round, but you could still start making the chassis, suspension, and many other components on the car before the wing rules come out.

Has anyone done an analysis on the new aero package to see if it is still beneficial? It is still bigger than the old rules package, which if I remember correct seemed to be a pretty even split of points gained vs lost.

Swiftus

08-22-2014, 08:21 AM

...and most schools are barely back in session yet....

This is your Northern Hemisphere talking. Understand that Formula exists around the entire world and ideally will continue to have co-mingling in the future.

TimS

08-22-2014, 08:23 AM

I believe the following does reiterate some points others have raised already; sorry for where that is the case.

I personally support the proposal to delay the rules changes, on the grounds that there is insufficient clarity in the proposed rules to give a fair playing field between teams, and that revisions around August 31st do not leave sufficient time for many teams to perform a normal vehicle design process.
My concerns about fairness are because the upper limit for front wing packaging will have a noticeable impact of achievable technical performance, and is regulated by "intent of rules" and subjectively assessed requirements regarding driver egress. Without significant changes in the revised release, we will likely see teams designing around individually given and non-transparent rules clarifications; which is certainly a far from ideal situation- how will you feel when a design you wanted to develop but considered illegal is allowed out on track a from few pit bays down? And did the RC really intend to encourage use of 9.8" OD tyres???

With significant changes to close these loopholes, much conceptual design will have to restart and we will see a significant reduction in the total design time available to US and Euro teams.
Perhaps it does add some challenge, but given that the majority of teams are limited by human resources and completion schedules, it is unlikely to be beneficial for the competition. We will see a widening gap in the technical options that can be developed between teams of different levels of resource maturity, and reduced emphasis on conceptual design and innovation vs. completion schedule, driver training and vehicle tuning, as the demands of project lead-time overwhelm teams' ability to commit to exploring a range of solutions.

Scott and Kev, I cannot agree however, that in our our case there is much of a disadvantage for Australian teams planning to compete internationally in 2015. As axelripper suggests, I would be confident in being able modifying our aero package to a compliant but non-optimal package in under a month, and achieving similar net DF to our 2013 design (60Kg@60kph). We can probably chuck the now-pointless DRS system straight into the bin as well and the points disadvantage most to US and Euro teams will still be trivial unless we are trying to beat GFR. Should we target top 10 finishes at FSG, all we really have to do is good reliability engineering and driver training- especially if all of next year's design finalists fail to finish again.... (You would think this is something, along with the number of flaming vehicles and marshals hit by loose wheels we see each year, that probably should raise more concern than the wings being too big..)

At this point I should probably add that these comments are my own and in no way reflect represent opinions of the team I am a part of or its members.
I am in no position to make commitments or representations on their behalf, but would like to add some further thoughts of my own regarding the processes (or perhaps lack therof) in place to develop FSAE via the RC.

Glancing at the world ranking lists, there are about 500 teams competing per year in this competition. Based on some rough cost estimates we are seeing an average of perhaps $100,000 pa committed from universities (**including workshop space costs), sponsors and team members. Additionally considering work hours per team, averaging aprox 25 members and 5h per week through the year I would put the total yearly costs of our competition at around $50 million and 3 million work hours. I should note I have tried to be conservative here (our work hours and costs are higher) and I would not be surprised if actual average costs committed are more than twice those figures.

It should follow that all teams are very significant stakeholders in the Formula-SAE and Formula Student competitions. They have the right to demand excellence from our competition organizers and expect continuous improvement of the competition through best practice in leadership, management and organisation. If this is not forthcoming they have the right to demand change or should seriously consider options to take investment elsewhere.
My current understanding is that the RC operates as a distributed voluntary group whose actions and reasoning are generally without transparency, without oversight, and, if some of the comments on this forum are true, have no interest in taking on-board views or offers of assistance from some of the most highly respected competitors.
I cannot help but think this is highly inappropriate for a competition of this scale and value to engineering industries. (anyone, please correct any mistakes here on my part. I am very interested in knowing how the RC actually operates behind it's shroud of mystery)

I look forward to the final release of the FSAE rules, hopefully with change to other areas more relevant to improving the performance of the series itself.
There has certainly been some forward progress this year- particually in discussions regarding opening up of ETC and capacity regulations, as well as wing structural test requirements.
However I remain worried that the process of developing rules changes is being done without consideration of the competition's intent, and without appropriate incident reporting, statistics, simulation and input from competitors.
All of these are required to intelligently propose changes that will lead to positive outcomes in line with competition goals, and ensure issues are spotted well ahead of their release.
(Again, I would love to have all this proved completely wrong by the RC providing data and reasoning to back up their rules changes!)

Tim

Mumpitz

08-22-2014, 09:45 AM

I seem to remember a few years ago the completion rate at MI being around 40%. What changed? .

Memories apparently.

Year / # teams that finished all laps at MIS
'06 34
'07 37
'08 33
'09 34
'10 43
'11 36
'12 46
'13 41
'14 46

So you are saying that more restrictive rules help because less risk of competition failure, but more uncertainty and less time to adapt is good?There is a flaw in the logic there.

How about less restrictive rules to promote learning and risk management and more reasonable rules and release timing to exemplify good business practices.
If the lesson is to accept illogical regulation and vague instructions then the proposed rules are doing a great job. I would really like to see the opportunity taken to demonstrate and foster good practices and management techniques in developing engineers. Justifying with, "It's fine because it happens in industry" just insures the future engineers will continue down that path. See you in the unemployment line at the next recession...

08-22-2014, 09:30 PM

So many other interesting subjects to talk about. (I would love to add some thoughts to Geoff's new "Psych..." thread, or talk about dampers, etc...)

But, unfortunately, the really pressing issue right now is THE BABOONS IN THE COCKPIT!
~o0o~

Glancing at the world ranking lists, there are about 500 teams competing per year in this competition. Based on some rough cost estimates we are seeing an average of perhaps $100,000 pa committed from universities (**including workshop space costs), sponsors and team members. Additionally considering work hours per team, averaging aprox 25 members and 5h per week through the year I would put the total yearly costs of our competition at around $50 million and 3 million work hours. I should note I have tried to be conservative here (our work hours and costs are higher) and I would not be surprised if actual average costs committed are more than twice those figures.

It should follow that all teams are very significant stakeholders in the Formula-SAE and Formula Student competitions. They have the right to demand excellence from our competition organizers and expect continuous improvement of the competition through best practice in leadership, management and organisation. If this is not forthcoming they have the right to demand change or should seriously consider options to take investment elsewhere.

Agreed 100%!

I suggest that as many Teams as possible make the above very clear to this (self-elected?) "International Rules Committee". A good starting point would be to draft a new set of "Formula Student Rules" that would form the basis of any future competitions. And a good starting point for these new Rules would be an early copy of the "FSAE Rules", say, from the early 1990s.

The just completed smaller European competitions of FS-Czech and FS-Austria have shown that (apparently) very enjoyable and educational competitions can be run by bodies with little or no connection to "The SAE". I am sure those comps would be at least as good, if not better, if they worked with a much better written RuleBook.

The only way that you students can ensure a good future for these competitions is by letting the IRC know, in no uncertain terms, that THEY ARE NOT THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN.
~o0o~

Originally posted by AxelRipper:
Has anyone done an analysis on the new aero package to see if it is still beneficial?

The point of all these discussions is ... WHICH NEW AERO PACKAGE???

Is it the one suggested by the wording of the new Rules, that says you can have an unlimited number of front-wings stacked above the nose, all with razor-sharp trailing edges?

Or is it some curious interpretation of "the intent of the Rules", that might suggest that only one low mounted front-wing is legal (with the TE radii decided by a roll-of-the-dice at scrutineering)?

As Mumpitz said, just because some fools in some industries can make some cock-ups, that does not make STUPIDITY universally acceptable. On the other hand, ... see the movie "Idiocracy". Sighhh .....
~o0o~

For the record, these new aero Rules shave about 4" off the overhangs allowed for aero stuff. Total aero-platform AREA is hardly changed at all (ie. add 4" to the wheelbase for the same total area). And the best aero comes from the underbody. So total potential downforce from the underbody is hardly changed at all.

So I have NO DOUBTS AT ALL that 3G in Skid-Pad is still available (ie. SP-time = ~3.5s). Some hints here. (http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/race/sports-cars/the-secrets-behing-the-delta-wing/)

Z

Cunningham

08-22-2014, 09:58 PM

Many members of my team are in full support of delaying the rules change until next year when they can be distributed before conceptual and detailed design. Here are some reasons:

* FSAE cars are more advanced than ever and to be competitive against teams with many years of iterative design, younger teams must start the design process early (i.e. May)

* Judges and faculty advisers always stress finishing the car early so it can be properly developed in testing. How can this be done with only 8 months from the cradle to the grave?

* On aero cars, every aspect of the vehicle's design (suspension, power, chassis, electronics placement, etc.) is influenced by aerodynamic sizing and location. Being unaware of the aero regulations prior to design will result in vehicl es that are not cohesively thought out. Isn't cohesive/integrated design another piece of feedback that is always being stressed to the students by judges and faculty?

* The aero team at my school literally received tentative 2015 aero rules 2 days before the Conceptual Design Review. The committee should recognize that given the cars' more advanced nature, releasing the rules in August or September is no longer reasonable--thus a delay to 2016 should be enacted.

JulianH

08-26-2014, 01:58 AM

The question is: How much is really going to be changed?

Everybody now knows about the smaller wings, so you can design your car for 30-40% less downforce compared to 2013, if you ran big wings this year.
Unsprung aero seems to be still legal, so if you planned to go there, you still can.
Reduce noise level: I think it should still be possible to run single-cylinders, you just have to work more on the noise. Not an expert in this but if a team can go from 133 dB to "passing noise" at competition, it shouldn't be a major design problem to plan for that.
Larger engines: Ok it sucks that you probably can't go to a 650cc/700cc engine if it's allowed for 2015 because the timeline is to short to check what is "now legal" and maybe choose an engine from this category. But you still can start working on this engine for 2016 (which would be the same if the rules are pushed back a year). I think nobody has a disadvantage here. Same goes for the turbo's.
4WD eCars: At least in Germany and probably in Austria, the power limit for 4WD and 2WD will stay the same. Probably they will get reduced but that will not make a difference in car design. In the US nobody seems to really care about 4WD, so not really a problem...

Of course, if there is a real "game changer" like the templates back in 2009(?), then your have a problem, that's true.
So far I'm not seeing one.

Cunningham,
I think the "smaller teams" can use this to their advantage. Next year, a well finished car with a lot of testing might be able to achieve Top10 as easy as never before if the "big well-funded teams" are too busy trying to figure out the best new concept...

About Curtin running in Europe 2015: Yes, that's sad and it will be difficult for the European teams to go to Michigan as well, but if it is really just Aero and you have the budget to travel overseas, I'm convinced that you are also able to build the 2015 wing set a bit early and put it on the old car. The car might be designed for a bit higher loads but ok... if the new rules come 2016, Monash will have to choose to build two cars as well or a "adapted" 2015 version for Europe or have a "not perfect version" for the 2015 Australian competition.

I look forward to see the rules in the next couple of days and then it's easier to discuss if a delay is something to think about. To be honest, I also thing that the rule makers probably won't care...

Swiftus

08-26-2014, 02:19 AM

The question is: How much is really going to be changed?... 4WD eCars: At least in Germany and probably in Austria, the power limit for 4WD and 2WD will stay the same...

I'll pose a thought experiment to you Julian. What if 4WD were banned in 3 days? Would that be enough of an effect on your team to make you think twice about a late rules release?

JulianH

08-26-2014, 03:18 AM

I'll pose a thought experiment to you Julian. What if 4WD were banned in 3 days? Would that be enough of an effect on your team to make you think twice about a late rules release?

No problem there.
The only thing "we" have of the new car at that stage is a laptime simulation with some design guidelines, a dirty CFD of a proposed 2015 Aero package and the seat (we run the same seat since 2010: Never change a winning seat!).

"Our" new team starts middle of September. So, at the moment the team does not know which person is going to do what and as a team that does not carry over much more than the seat from last year, it wouldn't be a problem for Zurich to go back to 2WD.

I think banning 4WD is still one of those "game changers" I talked about. If a US team wanted to go 4WD for Lincoln 2015 and it would be banned "in three days", yes that would "change my mind". Just different wing sizes does not. Because those are known right now.

If the chassis rules would change so that the 2014 frames / monocoques are illegal, yeah that would be an issue if teams plan to re-use their frame. So far, I don't see that happening though.

To give the question back to you:
What changes would affect you so that you don't see yourself able to build a freaky fast car for Michigan?

Swiftus

08-26-2014, 06:28 AM

The only thing "we" have of the new car at that stage is a laptime simulation with some design guidelines, a dirty CFD of a proposed 2015 Aero package and the seat (we run the same seat since 2010: Never change a winning seat!).

AMZ already has a knowledge base for how to control 4WD system, right? And I bet AMZ spent a lot of effort and time and money amounting the knowledge necessary for a 4WD solution so that the next year's design engineers could stand on the shoulder of giants. I think you are selling AMZ short when you say the only thing you have of the new car is a lap sim and a seat.

What changes would affect you so that you don't see yourself able to build a freaky fast car for Michigan?
I am pretty sure our cars will be quick no matter what rule changes take place, however it would be in spite of the late release of the rules, not because of them.

The issue is that in order to build a complete car concept, you have to conceptualize the car completely in the first place. The chassis must be designed in parallel to the suspension which must be designed in parallel to the powertrain which must be designed in parallel to the aero.

JulianH

08-26-2014, 06:46 AM

AMZ already has a knowledge base for how to control 4WD system, right? And I bet AMZ spent a lot of effort and time and money amounting the knowledge necessary for a 4WD solution so that the next year's design engineers could stand on the shoulder of giants. I think you are selling AMZ short when you say the only thing you have of the new car is a lap sim and a seat.

Of course. We have some fancy control mechanisms for 4WD. But if 4WD is forbidden, we have to throw those things away or maybe try to adapt them back to 2WD where they came from (2012 Torque Vectoring with two motors). I'm not selling them short. I think all 4WD teams have great knowledge in those areas but if it's forbidden, well than it's just gone... It doesn't make the "new best concept" any slower. It just reduces "our" advantage compared to the teams that haven't run 4WD so far.

The issue is that in order to build a complete car concept, you have to conceptualize the car completely in the first place. The chassis must be designed in parallel to the suspension which must be designed in parallel to the powertrain which must be designed in parallel to the aero.

Don't take it the wrong way, but your team showed that you still can be the fastest out there with a 5 year old monocoque mold and still different aero packages ;)
More serious: Sure, concept is key. But if the frame rules stay the same and the suspension rules stay the same and you know that your aero is producing X% less downforce, your basically there. Yes the powertrain rules will come late. We will not see a lot of teams trying to adapt new engines for 2015.

Yes, the rules come too late but from what I heard and read about them, I think the "fear of the new rules" is not really justified. There are changes but not a lot that really influence the main concept of the car.
But sure, the excuse "Yeah rules came too late, car finished too late, we didn't test, we are a standing team" will come up quite often next year. A small team that is well-prepared might have a good chance next year to upset the competition...

AxelRipper

08-28-2014, 09:07 PM

But sure, the excuse "Yeah rules came too late, car finished too late, we didn't test, we are a standing team" will come up quite often next year. A small team that is well-prepared might have a good chance next year to upset the competition...

If you're a small enough team that your car winds up not competing due to the changes in aero, you're missing the point here. The saying "To finish first, you must first finish" comes to mind here. Maybe, instead of focusing on "WE MUST MAKE AERO BECAUSE FASTER" you should focus on having a running car at competition. I was going to say "running, well sorted" there, but as long as you have a car that runs and can complete endurance you can still finish far more reasonable than if you don't. I remember a few years we beat some big name schools because for whatever reason they failed endurance and we didn't. Running a carburetor on a Honda 450.

Trust me, the payoff of completing competition successfully is far better than trying to do what the cool kids are doing and failing. It also gives you a good start point for the future, as well as the confidence and marketability of an actually running car.