Rules Reduction Recommendations

[Kevin Hayward]

This is following a prompt from a few people in the post about the 2015 rules. A suggestion was made to provide the rules committee with a set of shorter and simplified rules fromt his community. Doug Milliken suggested a wiki, but I propose that we put together an edited document using these forums as a place for reasoned discussion.

Here are the guidelines that I propose:
1. We modify the rules with the sole intent of shortening and simplifying rules documentation.
2. We attempt to stay as close as possible to the intent of the 2015 rules.
3. Conceptual changes to the rules are permitted only on the basis of the following:
- The rule(s) fundamentally works against simplicity
- Rule is currently unenforceable
- Rule is overly subjective
4. Any proposed rule changes or additions are made with supporting calculations, simulations or real test data where possible.

Some limitations:
1. We will limit any attempt to make changes to the intent of the rules. This is not an attempt to undermine the rules committee, rather a way to provide editing feedback.
2. Try to avoid any abuse or ridicule of individuals here, event staff, or anyone associated with the rules committee. If you feel strongly about it do it somewhere else.
3. Where possible we will try to keep to the rough order of rules and use similar sections. Conceptually there may be better ways, but for a first pass consistency with older rule-sets will likely have less impact on the teams.

Deliverables:
1. A revised version of the 2015 rules to be sumbitted to the rules committee for consideration. A target length for the document is 100 pages with similar text formatting to the current rules. For reference the first rules with templates (2009) was 105 pages.
2. A document detailling which rules were altered and the justification for the changes.

Process:
I suggest using these forums to discuss potential areas of change. It will be difficult to gain 100% consensus on the items. To this end I believe a group of editors would be the best way of working. I believe these editors should be nominated, and supported by at least 2-3 others. I would expect a small group of maybe 4-6. They should be active members on these forums if possible.

The process is intended to be open, and only implementing changes or ideas suggested by the community. Regular updates to the documents would be made publically available and accessable from these forums. An attempt will be made to keep these documents current and complete at all times so they may be viewed by the rules committee at every stage of development. Current rules committee members are more than welcome to add suggestions or direction to the thread.

First stage documents are to be submitted to the Rules Committee by the end of the year to allow time to assess the suggestions prior to the release of the 2016 rules. Final documents for this process to be released by the end of 2016 in time for consideration for the next expected large change in 2017.


There is no expectation that any of the suggestions will be adopted. This process is purely a feedback mechanism, not a way to replace the current rules.

I will edit this front page if any guidelines are modified, or deliverables changed.

Kev

[Kevin Hayward]

For reference 2009 vs. 2015 page count



Total:
105
176



Administrative Regulations
10
19


Techincal Regulations (total)
36
101



General Technical Regulations
36
52


Alternative Frame Rules
-
7


IC engine only rules
-
17


EV only rules
-
25


Static Event Regulations
24
30


Dynamic Event Reulations
22
23



Kev

[Kevin Hayward]

I have put a bare document up for revision:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/238606037/FSAE-Revised-Rules

This is a word document with headers and footers removed, with a beginner header stating it is not an official document.

Kev

[mech5496]

Kev, great initiative and glad someone started it. I would propose starting a shared folder on a cloud service (google drive for instance) which would allow revisions etc. I could host it on my account and make it publicly available if you wish.

EDIT: Of course, this also means that I volunteer to be an editor.


Penalties for Rule S4.16, S6.8, T3.22.7, T3.9.5, A5, are contradictory with A8.4.1.

All this nonsense could be replaced with a single penalty policy for late submissions, i.e. -5 points per day for the first 10 days, then deregistration of the team.

[tromoly]

Great thinking Kevin.


Penalties for Rule S4.16, S6.8, T3.22.7, T3.9.5, A5, are contradictory with A8.4.1.

Kevin, I think rule T3.22.9 is the ruling on IAs you’re thinking of regarding penalties, T3.22.7 states that the data must be uploaded in a PDF. Nevertheless that string of rules is a good talking point.


All this nonsense could be replaced with a single penalty policy for late submissions, i.e. -5 points per day for the first 10 days, then deregistration of the team.

I agree, this is already covered at the beginning of rule A8.4 in the existing rules.

Using the rules suggested by Kevin above, here’s a few proposed edits.

Analysis:
Rule A8.4.1 states “Failure to submit the required Business Logic Case, Cost, Design or Technical documents within 10 days of the deadline will constitute an automatic withdrawal of your team”, however the wording of rule S4.16 states “Teams that do not submit a Cost Report will receive negative 100 points for the Cost & Manufacturing Analysis score”, and rule S6.8 states “If any or all of your Design Documents are received more than ten (10) days late they will be classified as “Not Submitted” and your team will not participate in the Design Event and will receive zero (0) points for design”, both rules implying that teams would still be able to compete if these documents are not submitted.

Also, rule A8.4 under “Late Submission of Cost Report” and “Penalty for Late Submission or Non-Submission” contradicts rule A8.4.1, implying that if the documents are not submitted within 15 and 10 days of the deadline, respectively, the team may still compete.

Further, rule A8.4 states “Documents received /uploaded after the deadline and documents that are largely incomplete will be penalized negative ten (-10) points per day, or partial day”, which is repeated in S4.16, S6.8, T.3.22.9, and T3.9.5. Rule A8.4 also states “with the following penalty caps and exclusions”; these penalty caps are again defined in S4.16, S6.8, T3.22.9, and T3.9.5.

Proposition:
Consolidate penalty points and non-submission rulings into rule A8.4 and A8.4.1, respectively, with removal of point penalties and non-submission rulings from each document’s section in rules such as S4.16, S6.8, T3.22.7, and T3.9.5. This action would consolidate all point penalties to one central location for quick, efficient referencing.

For pertinent EV rulings found in A8.4, an additional sub-ruling A8.4.2 added to make rulings more concise.

Proposed Rule Re-Write:

(Deletions in Red, additions in Blue)

A8.4 Late Submission Penalties
Documents received /uploaded after the deadline and documents that are largely incomplete will be penalized negative ten (-10) points per day, or partial day, late with the following penalty caps and exclusions:
A5 “Electrical Systems Officer and Electrical Systems Advisor Form” - The penalty for late ESO/ESA forms is capped at negative fifty (-50) points.
T3.9.5 “Structural Equivalency Spreadsheet (SES)” or AF2 “Structural Requirements Certification Form (SRCF)” – The penalty for late SES/SRCF submission is capped at negative fifty (-50) points. However, teams are advised that SES/SRCF forms are evaluated in the order in which they are received and that late submissions will be reviewed last. Late SES/SRCF approval could delay the completion of your vehicle. We strongly recommend you submit your SES/SRCF as early as possible.
T3.22.7 “Impact Attenuator Report Penalties” - The penalty for late Impact Attenuator Report submissions is capped at negative fifty (-50) points.
PART IC - IC2.1 “Fuel” – There is no point penalty for late submission of a fuel type order, however once the deadline has passed your team will be allocated the basic fuel type.
Rules S3 “Business Logic Plan” – The penalty for late submission of the BLP is capped at negative fifty (-50) points.
Rule S4.16 “Late Submission of Cost Report” – For the first 15 days after the deadline submission penalties for late Cost Reports are capped at negative eighty (-80) points. After the first 15 days a late Cost Report is classified as “Not Submitted”. Cost Reports that are not submitted will receive negative one hundred (-100) points and may not participate in the Cost Event.
Rule S6.8 “Penalty for Late Submission or Non-submission” – The Design Report and Design Spec Sheet collectively constitute the “Design Documents”. Late submission or failure to submit all, or any one, of the Design Documents will be penalized at the standard negative ten (-10) points per day to a maximum of negative one hundred (-100) points. If your Design Documents are received more than ten (10) days late they will be classified as “Not Submitted” and your team will not participate in the Design Event and will receive zero (0) points for design.
EV9.1 “Electrical System Form” The penalty for late ESF submissions is capped at negative fifty (-50) points. If the ESF is received more than ten (10) days late it will be classified as “Not Submitted” and your vehicle will not be inspected and will not be permitted to compete.EV9.2 “Failures Modes and Effects Analysis” The penalty for late FMEA submissions is capped at negative fifty (-50) points. If the FMEA is received more than ten (10) days late it will be classified as “Not Submitted” and your vehicle will not be inspected and will not be permitted to compete.
Program Submissions – Program submission requirements differ across competitions and may or may not involve penalties. Please submit program material by the published deadlines. This rule is only a summary; it does not supersede the individual event rules. Read the individual rules for complete document submission requirements. Check the competition websites for deadlines, submission addresses and other details. If you have any questions – ask us.


A8.4.1 Failure to submit the required Business Logic Case, Cost, Design or Technical documents within
10 days of the deadline will constitute an automatic withdrawal of your team. Your team will be
notified after the 9th day of no submission that we have not received your documents and after 10
days your team’s registration will be cancelled and no refund will be given. This elimination will
take place after each round of required document deadlines.


A8.4.2 Failure to submit the required Electrical System Form (ESF) or FMEA documents within 10 days of the deadline will result in the document being classified as “Not Submitted” and your vehicle will not be inspected and will not be permitted to compete.


S4.16 Late Submission of Cost Report
It is imperative that the cost judges have the Cost Reports in enough time for proper evaluation. Teams that submit reports late will be penalized 10 points per day late, with a maximum penalty of 80 points. Teams that do not submit a Cost Report will receive negative 100 points for the Cost & Manufacturing Analysis score. Penalties will be applied based on official upload date and time for electronic submission and by post mark for printed submissions.


S6.8 Penalty for Late Submission or Non-submission
The Design Report and Design Spec Sheet collectively constitute the “Design Documents”. Late submission or failure to submit all, or any one, of the Design Documents will be penalized at the standard negative ten (-10) points per day to a maximum of negative one hundred (-100) points. If any or all of your Design Documents are received more than ten (10) days late they will be classified as “Not Submitted” and your team will not participate in the Design Event and will receive zero (0) points for design.


T3.22.9 Teams that submit their Impact Attenuator Data Report after the due date will be penalized 10 points per day up to a maximum of 50 points, which will be taken off the team’s Total Score.


T3.9.5 Structural Equivalency Spreadsheet – Submission
a. Address – SESs must be submitted to the officials at the competition you are entering at the address shown in the Appendix or indicated on the competition website.
b. Due Date – SESs must be submitted no later than the date indicated on the competition website. Teams that submit their Structural Equivalency Spreadsheet after the due date for the competition will be penalized 10 points per day up to a maximum of 50 points, which will be taken off the team’s Total Score.
c. Acknowledgement – North America competitions – SESs submitted for vehicles entered into competitions held in North America will be acknowledged automatically by the fsaeonline website.

[mech5496]

Great input tromoly, thanks! I am integrating those in a working version right now which I will upload and share. I also added a further consolidation of my own. Delete all the individual wording and add this instead:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The penalty for:
· A5 “Electrical Systems Officer and Electrical Systems Advisor Form
· T3.9.5 “Structural Equivalency Spreadsheet (SES)” or AF2 “Structural Requirements Certification Form (SRCF)”
· T3.22.7 “Impact Attenuator Report Penalties”
· Rules S3 “Business Logic Plan”
· EV9.1 “Electrical System Form”
· EV9.2 “Failures Modes and Effects Analysis”
is capped at negative fifty (-50) points.

NOTE: Teams are advised that SES/SRCF forms are evaluated in the order in which they are received and that late submissions will be reviewed last. Late SES/SRCF approval could delay the completion of your vehicle. We strongly recommend you submit your SES/SRCF as early as possible.

Exceptions:
· PART IC - IC2.1 “Fuel” – There is no point penalty for late submission of a fuel type order, however once the deadline has passed your team will be allocated the basic fuel type.

· Rule S4.16 “Late Submission of Cost Report” – For the first 15 days after the deadline submission penalties for late Cost Reports are capped at negative eighty (-80) points. .

· Rule S6.8 “Penalty for Late Submission or Non-submission” – The Design Report and Design Spec Sheet collectively constitute the “Design Documents”. Late submission or failure to submit all, or any one, of the Design Documents will be penalized at the standard negative ten (-10) points per day to a maximum of negative one hundred (-100) points.

· Program Submissions – Program submission requirements differ across competitions and may or may not involve penalties. Please submit program material by the published deadlines.

This rule is only a summary; it does not supersede the individual event rules. Read the individual rules for complete document submission requirements. Check the competition websites for
deadlines, submission addresses and other details. If you have any questions – ask us.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


EDIT: Document uploaded as the original that Kev made, you can find both (and upload future versions) on a shared forlder here:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B9AIXdZgarikbVQyd2pKS0JFdE0&usp=sharing

[mech5496]

On the fashion of tromolys' post:

EV8.3.7 The IMD must be either within the accumulator or the charger must incorporate one. When charging the accumulator, the IMD must be active and must be able to shut down the charger.
In the case that the accumulator is charged outside of the vehicle, either the charger must incorporate an active IMD or an active IMD must be within the accumulator.

[mech5496]

I have noticed in the past that Article A is unncecessarily long and complicated, so I started editing it trying to keep all the important points. You can find a working version here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9AIXdZgarikWmZJZ2ZlVFZBUFk/edit?usp=sharing

As noted above this is still a working version, with comments etc. Numbering is not concise because I have deleted some sections completely. Additions are highlighted in blue. Reasoning is included as comments. Formatting is not correct. I would definitely appreciate some thoughts/feedback if you are so inclined and I will try to upload a complete, concise version within the week.

[Kevin Hayward]

Harry,

I had similar thoughts about collecting the comp info into a table. I think we may need to make the decision with this review to not include any competition specific (i.e. UK, US, Germany rules). It is common for competitions to have supplementary regulations that pertain directly to the event being run. A lot of what is written in the trailing half of the first rules section only applies to the US.

Given that this docuemnt is intended as recommended rule set suitable for all comps I think it would be a good idea to work this way.

It is noticeable how difficult it is to see what has been eliminated or kept. Short of having both documents open and comparing them article for article.

Approaching this article by article (as you have done) is probably the best way forward at this point.

Kev

[mech5496]

A lot of what is written in the trailing half of the first rules section only applies to the US.

Totally agree here.


It is noticeable how difficult it is to see what has been eliminated or kept.

I think it is a good idea to maintain the specific rule numbering and add "deleted" in red right next to it. I did not, because I wated to produce a "clean" document to see how shorter it could be.

[Kevin Hayward]

Harry,

I think that the clean document is the right way to go. Otherwise we wont be able to show the clear simplicity. Maybe if we maintain a rules change guide as a second document.

Kev

[mech5496]

As promised, finished a "clean" version of the Administrative section, which can be found on the following link:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9AIXdZgarikTUJMUGE5LTR2cm8/edit?usp=sharing

Changes include:

· Document is now structured as a 2-column table to aid alignment and formatting/numbering.
· A1.1.1 states facts that are not 100% true (very few restrictions) and unnecessary words, which were removed.
· A1.2.1 and A1.2.3 were integrated into A1.4
· A1.2.4 and A1.2.5 deleted because of no added value.
· A1.3 deleted because of no added value.
· New A2.1 should replace A2.5 and A2.6 in table form as done.
· A2.4.1 is deleted as it is competition-specific info
· A3.2, added “Rule sets dated for other years are invalid.”
· A3.6 is deleted. Rules should be clear and not based on subjective judgments.
· A3.9 deleted because of no added value.
· A3.11 deleted because it has nothing to do with the rule book at all!
· A4.1 removed “to insure that this is an engineering design competition”. What does the former has to do with the latter?
· A4.8 and its respective sub-rules and A4.9 are deleted. They are specifically addressed per competition, no need for them in the general rules.
· A5.2.1, A5.2.2 and A5.2.3 consolidated
· A6.2 removed “any literature or knowledge related to car design and” as it is redundant.
· A6.4 is not enforced by any means, nor is/can be checked for validity. It is consolidated with A6.3.
· A6.5 reworded
· A6.6 consolidated with A6.7 and A6.8
· A6.9.1, there is no reason to keep those exceptions, but for now they were left as is.
· A6.10.1 and A6.10.2 have been consolidated to A6.10
· Article 7: This section is significantly shortened by eliminating competition-specific wording. Deleted A7.1, A7.3, A7.4, A7.5, A7.7, A7.8, A7.9
· Added 7.0 to prompt students checking their respective competition websites for details.
· Article 8: Integrated previously made changes
· A8.1, some changes were made in order to distinguish between Combustion-only and EV-only submissions and made easier to read.
· A8.4 is kept as per previous revision and was broken down to be easier to read.
· A8.5 and A8.6 have been deleted as they were US-specific
· A10.5.1 and A10.5.2 consolidated under A10.5

Changes can be also found in a changelog file, accessed here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9AIXdZgarikT3pEWFhsbDhIQVU/edit?usp=sharing

Total length has gone down from 16 pages to 10. I would like some people to have a go and make their comments/editing if possible. Thank you!

[Bemo]

In general I think this is a great initiative, but at some points you're missing the organiser's point of view imo. I would NEVER be willing to organize an event without something like the violation of intent rule in my rules set. If you don't want to be too restrictive, you will always end up with rules which have loopholes. If a team shows up with something that might be within the wording of the rules in a juristic way, but is a clear and heavy safety problem you need some sort of joker in your rules to restrict this.

You are putting a lot of effort in here. What I fear is that if people in the rules committee read things like this, they will consider all this as a wish list from some naive kids and will just throw it away. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying you are some naive kids, but if you aren't very careful this is what some old guys in the rules committee will propably think.

[Pete Marsh]

If a team shows up with something that might be within the wording of the rules in a juristic way, but is a clear and heavy safety problem you need some sort of joker in your rules to restrict this.

A1.3
Good Engineering Practices
Vehicles entered into Formula SAE competitions are expected to be designed and fabricated in accordance with good engineering practices.

Perhaps this rule could be expanded to to specifically include safety hazards, in the opinion of the event scrutineers, and serve as a catch all for anything that is inappropriate while still allowing innovative solutions to the rules "problem"
The problem with the "intent" rule is it limits the solution space to only that envisioned by the members of the rules committee. It is unlikely, and not practical, for the rules committee to cover the full range of possible solutions that could be generated by the 1000s of students involved in the competition.

Pete

PS - Bemo, check your inbox.

[Bemo]

I agree that the "good engineering practices" and the "violation of intent" rules can be put together to something saying that a design which is not properly executed and/or thought through which is therefore leading to an unsafe configuration is not allowed to run. This might be open enough so it does not prohibit designs which the rules committee didn't think of in general but still being a "joker" for tech inspectors if a design is considered not safe enough. I know you end up with having individuals judging what is safe and what is not, but no organiser will be willing not to have such an option.

Sorry I don't come up with a proper wording, but it is quite hard if you're not a native English speaker.

[mech5496]

I agree with both of you, and that would be a proper way to exclude some designs based on safety considerations. The reason behind excluding the "modifying the rules" part was the UWAM wheelpods ban; IMO it was a design that was not unsafe by any means, however it was banned based on judges/scrutineers judgement. That being said, I think that consolidating it to "good engineering practices" and basing it on safety is the way to go!

[Bemo]

As far as I know the wheel pods weren't banned on bases of the "violation of intent rule" but because of the "open-wheel rule" which was pretty undefined back then. To be honest, I've been to 10 events as a team member and to 6 events as a scrutineer and I can't remember this rule was ever really used. It is just a last way out for an organizer. Otherwise for example this year's Ann Arbor car would have been banned because it fulfilled the wording of the rule, but it was not the intent of the rules committee to see such a car. I've never heard the "violation of intent" rule being abused that way.

Of course unclear wording of a rule can lead to discussions like about the side pots of UWA some time ago. But to be honest, when I saw a picture of that car for the first time, my initial thought was that this is not open-wheeled anymore. But that's just my opinion...

[Kevin Hayward]

My vote is that an intent ruling should stay in. We first want to show how the rules can be made smaller, without making an attempt to change what we don't like to things that we do. Obviously once we get to the technical rules (which are the longest section) there will be cases where simplification is only possible by changing some of the restrictions or constraints. I think it is best to keep these to a minimum.

The intent rule is quite a controversial one. If the rules are clear there would be no questions of intent, and no need for the statement. However, competition organisers should have the right to stop anything that could conceivably injure a driver / marshall / spectator. We also do not want subjective tech inspectioon where possible, such as a tech inspector stating that yes it is FSAE legal, but not as safe as option X used in series Y, and then calling a violation. I have seen this happen and been involved in enough tech inspection "heated discussions" to know that it is a problem.

May want to revisit this at the end of the process, if the rules can be made much more clear.

Kev

[tromoly]

Funny thing is, Formula E has wheel pods front and rear, yet are still considered Open Wheel. Not throwing fuel on the fire, just an observation.

When I have more time I'm hoping to contribute more, been time crunched lately. Have to say good work to Harry for going through the "boring" sections, I wouldn't want to touch Administrative stuff.

[Z]

Here are the guidelines that I propose:
...
Some limitations:
2. Try to avoid any abuse or ridicule of individuals here, event staff, or anyone associated with the rules committee. If you feel strongly about it do it somewhere else.

Kevin,

As strongly as I feel about the Rules changes, I was finding it difficult to post my ideas here because of your above guidelines. Fortunately, I have now managed to blow off some steam on another related Rules changes thread. So I will try to keep everything here at a positive level. :)

There are many, many details in the Rules that need addressing, which I hope to do later. But for now I would like to draw attention to some big-picture issues.
~~~o0o~~~

FRAME RULES - As noted by many people many times, a newbie Team can do most of its spaceframe design by simply following the Rules. That is, once the Front and Main-Roll-Hoops, Front-Bulkhead, Side-Impact-Structure, etc., are all put in place in accordance with the Rules, then there is very little extra to add.

Unfortunately, the end result of this process is that there are very few frames that I have ever seen in FSAE, in ~20 years of looking, that I consider to be "good" designs. In fact, none that I can remember. I honestly think that a major cause of this poor frame design is the Rules themselves. There are two main reasons for this.

1. TOO MANY RULES = TOO RESTRICTIVE. Whenever there is nothing much interesting on the telly, I pass the time by doodling different frame designs that might work well with some new overall car concept. When thinking about FSAE cars I invariably hit a restriction in the Rules that prevents me from having a frame that is "just right".

For example, I might want a tube running down the side of the car at a height of ~20 cm, and another at ~40 cm, but the Rules say there MUST be one at ~30 cm. Ughhh!!!

Or I might want the FRH to be at 30 degrees to vertical, for nice equilateral triangular shear bracing in side-view, but the Rules say the FRH MUST be <20 degrees from vertical. Ughhh!!!

And lots of other examples that make a really good design ILLEGAL.

2. TOO MANY RULES = NO NEED TO THINK. This is the bigger problem.

FSAE students that build spaceframes DO NOT have to think about the placement of most of their tubes. They DO NOT have to think about the tube diameters. Or about the wall thicknesses. They just have to mindlessly put the tubes where "The Rules" say they must go. In short, the students DO NOT HAVE TO THINK AT ALL.

The end result of this process is similar to what happened when the students were given computers with "spell-checkers". Nowadays, NOBODY CAN SPELL!

(Note 1. Correct spelling, but of the wrong word, is just as bad. Eg. there/their/they're, or to/too/two/tutu, etc.)
(Note 2. My high school English teacher, Ms Hobson, all straight-black-dressed, four-foot-nothing of blood-chilling, archetypal feminazi, must be rolling in her grave hearing me lecturing others on "correct spelling".)

Anyway, if FSAE is supposed to be educational, then the students should be encouraged to actually THINK about their frame designs. What size tubes to use? Where to put them? And so on.

I should stress that, other than perhaps some minimum guidelines on the MRH, safety is NOT an important issue here. A badly designed frame will be a bit floppy, leading to bad handling, and hence slower speeds. It might even crack a weld somewhere, giving even worse handling and even slower speeds. So what? The Team loses points in the Dynamic events. They can also get marked down in the Design event. But at least they learn something. And the smarter Teams can get on with building really good frames.

(And it should be obvious by now that the much bigger safety issues are the regular, and much more dangerous, fireballs at many comps, and also the regular shedding of wheels at comps. This latter problem seemingly encouraged by many Officials.)

Bottom line, less Frame Rules is better for education of the students.
~~~o0o~~~

SAFETY - It is worth stressing to all you young people, that whenever the "powers that be", in any area of society, want to impose some (err..., thinking of polite way to put this...) "unwarranted" new Rules, then they ALWAYS bring up the excuse of "safety". (And the second choice is always "to save you money".)

Here is Bemo's version of this thinking. (And, Bemo, I accept that this is the perfectly normal way of thinking for people who put themselves on the "other side of the fence". But that does not make it right.)
"... I think ... you're missing the organiser's point of view imo. I would NEVER be willing to organize an event without something like the violation of intent rule...
If a team shows up with ... a clear and heavy safety problem you need some sort of joker in your rules to restrict this."

As Pete pointed out, there only has to be a very short Rule that covers the "intent of safety". And, importantly, that section should ONLY address the issue of SAFETY.

(And, BTW, the "common law" in most any country that can hold an FSAE style competition has more than enough "rules" to cover the "intent of safety". Think about how dangerously you are allowed to behave in your country, before you break some "law". So there is very little need for yet more Rules in the FSAE Rule book to prohibit dangerous behaviour.)

The current "violation of intent" Rules are far too wide-ranging. This is obviously so, given that they have been used in the past to "ban" cars that simply did not appeal to some Officials' aesthetic tastes, with NO safety concerns at all.

There is a lot more that can be said on this issue. But for now, one very short Rule expressing a desire for a "safe" competition is more than enough.
~~~o0o~~~

EXCESSIVE HUBRIS - After reading Harry's posts, I had a closer look at some of the Rules he mentioned.

"A3.3 Rules Compliance...
A3.3.2 All team members, faculty advisors and other university representatives are required to cooperate with, and follow all instructions from, competition organizers, officials and judges." (My emphasis.)

This "Compliance" Rule, that orders all plebs to "follow all instructions", is very likely unconstitutional and in breach of civil rights in any reasonably free country. Think about it. Should you really have to follow any and "all" instructions, regardless...

What if they order you to start doing something really silly? Say..., like invade Canada? (Similar things have happened before...)

It is an unnecessary Rule.

"A3.1 Rules Authority
The Formula SAE Rules are the responsibility of the Formula SAE Rules Committee and are issued under the authority of the SAE International Collegiate Design Series Committee.
...
A3.10 General Authority
SAE and the competition organizing bodies reserve the right to revise the schedule of any competition and/or interpret or modify the competition rules at any time and in any manner that is, in their sole judgment, required for the efficient operation of the event or the Formula SAE series as a whole."

The SAE ICDSC should realise that they are a relatively insignificant entity compared with all the student Teams that make up these competitions around the world. The worldwide competition is what it is because of the good work of the writers of the original Rules, and then thanks to the huge amount of work that has been put in by the countless students around the world.

The current ICDSC should contain their hubris.

Perhaps a short story about one of my experiences in a similar situation might help explain this viewpoint.

About ten years ago I received a letter from the Crown Solicitor's Office (this being the local representative of HRH Herself!). They wanted me to sign a legal document concerning a drainage ditch behind a property I owned. They also wanted a fee of several hundred dollars. One of the clauses in the ~5 pages of legalese asked me to,
"... indemnify Her Majesty the Queen, Her Heirs and Successors, Her Minions and Lackeys, Her Corgis, ... and everyone else down to the local garbage man..., against any and everything that may happen in any way, at anytime, anywhere in the whole Universe...",
or words to that effect.

My solicitor advised that this particular clause seemed "unduly onerous". Rather than waste money getting my solicitor to write to the CSO, I rang them directly. After eventually finding one of the minions there who had a vague notion of what the letter was about, I explained to him, in the most polite way that I could manage, given the huge respect that I have for Her Royal Highness Her Majesty The Queen of Australia, that he can take his legal document and SHOVE IT WHERE THE SUN DON'T SHINE!

Every year for the next several years the CSO sent me the same legal document, again asking me to sign it. Interestingly, each year the attendant fee was lowered, until it was finally completely waived. Whenever I could be bothered replying, my answer was always as above. It is now at least five years since I last heard from them, so I guess they have given up.

The moral of this story is that if you ask for too much, then you might end up with nothing.

The SAE ICDSC should realise that this competition is made by, and belongs to, the students. The students might just pick up their toys and go play somewhere else.

Z

(PS. Kevin, If above is "too much", then I can move it to another thread.)

[mech5496]

OK, I started going through Part T. Article 3 has always been a bit messy, one having to go through it 3-4 times to get everything and that involved a LOT of scrolling up/down. With alternative materials and "special treatment" of Aluminum (while it could be resolved at the Alternative materials section) and now with the addition of the thinner tube option and even thinner if physically tested, T3.4-T3.7 is really REALLY messy. My proposal is to define ONE baseline tube for each application (MRH, SIS, etc.), with specific OD and WT. Also define ONE absolutely minimum WT for each case as well. Teams would be allowed to use the thinner tubes than the baseline ones, if same yeld/ultimate strength, EI, cross-sectional area etc. is proved (also by testing). That would consolidate T3.4 and T3.6 to a single table, making it easier to read and understand, and also shorter. Also T3.5 (Alternative tubing), T3.7 (Aluminum tubing) and even T3.27 (composite spaceframes) should be consolidated IMO. Feedback anyone?

[Z]

Harry,

The suspension (ie. wishbone) tube sizes are not regulated, they often fail, the wheels often leave the car, and the Officials seem quite happy with that.

A failure of a frame tube has much less effect on "safety" than above, because the greater number of interconnected frame tubes means the rest of the car still "hangs together", albeit a bit out of shape.

So, IMO, all the "Frame Rules" can be greatly simplified. At most, I might suggest a minimum of four tubes, 25 mm diameter x 1.6 mm thick, running from Front-Bulkhead to MRH (ie. 1 high, 1 low, on each side).

BTW, has anyone ever seen a Side-Impact-Structure put to a real test at any comp (ie. one car "T-boning" another)?

I should also add that any FSAE-style car that I might build would be much, much, safer than the majority of the current cars. But it would be ILLEGAL in FSAE! Eg. FRH not vertical enough, bent tubes, etc...

This small racecar (http://www.hyperracer.com/hyper-racer/proracer/safe.html#), which is again much safer than a typical FSAE-spec car, would also be illegal (look at all those bent tubes!!!). Nevertheless, the Hyper-Racer is, IMO, a good role-model for the Rules to work towards. Or to put it the other way around, a clever set of Rules should allow cars like the HR, as well as other even safer options. BTW, the HR races on full-size circuits at ~200 kph!
~o0o~

Example of sloppy "word-smithing".

"T2.1 Vehicle Configuration
...
Definition of "Open Wheel" – Open Wheel vehicles must satisfy all of the following criteria:
a. The top 180 degrees of the wheels/tires must be unobstructed when viewed from vertically above the wheel.
b. The wheels/tires must be unobstructed when viewed from the side.
c. NO PART OF THE VEHICLE MAY ENTER A KEEP-OUT-ZONE DEFINED BY two lines extending vertically from positions 75mm in front of and 75mm behind, the outer diameter of the front and rear tires in the side view elevation of the vehicle, with tires steered straight ahead. This keep-out zone will extend laterally from the outside plane of the wheel/tire to the inboard plane of the wheel/tire." (My emphasis.)

The only reasonable interpretation of this RULE is that the tyres are NOT "parts" of the vehicle. Ok, so you might consider the tyres to be "consumables", so not a "permanent part" of the vehicle.

But then how do you keep the air in the tyres?

Ok, so maybe the wheels are NOT "parts" of the vehicle either? (Eg. they are often changed...)

So, what about the wheel-hub, axle, bearings, upright, brake-disc, caliper, outer-ends of suspension, etc.?

If these above bits ARE "parts" of the vehicle, then a strict interpretation of the wording of T2.1c says that all these bits must be mounted INBOARD of the inner plane of the tyre. Feasible, but hardly educational...

And if the nearby but unlabeled figure overrides the wording, then expect fireworks when you get to the Aero section!

Z

[mech5496]

Z,

as always thanks for the input! T2.1 bugs me as well. I personally find (a) and (b) redundant, as (c) supersedes both. However your questioning (albeit somewhat extreme) is right. It would be much appreciated though if you could also provide the "correct" wording per your opinion, as tromoly, Kev and others did so far.

[Z]

Harry,

Firstly, thank you for taking the time to do all these suggested changes. Personally, I could not do it, given Kevin's guidelines that the "intention" of the Rules stay essentially unchanged.

(Personally, I would find it easier to start with NO Rules to copy, and just good "intentions". Or, in terms of the old-house buyer's question of "Renovate or detonate?" it is definitely the second option.).
~o0o~

T2 - General Design Requirements...
===========================
That said, I think the best way forward in this partciular area is to provide a clear specification of a "Green-Allowable-Zone", inside of which the students can build whatever shape of car they like. I have mentioned this before, but given the many Rules related threads and PMs flying around over the last few months, I have forgotten where.

A "GAZ" would just be the complement of the current (very poorly specified!) "keep-out-zones", so does exactly the same thing, but uses less ink.

BUT (!!!), any sort of specification like this requires good engineering drawing standards to be followed. I suggest that the RC employ a capable draughtsman who knows how to do real engineering drawings. So, a standard 3-view drawing, possibly with sections, definitely with proper dimensioning, and definitely also with a title and/or number for referencing (could just be "Figure 2.1"!), and so on.

The GAZ is then an irregularly shaped, boxy, green volume, inside of which all parts of the car must be.

T9 - Aerodynamic Devices...
========================
Importantly, now there is no need for any of "T9 - Aero Devices". DELETE ALL OF IT.

None of the "aero devices" are defined, so it is a rather pointless example of Rule making. See another thread currently running, where students are having a "guessing competition" trying to figure out what they can do. Also, note how the first two plan-view diagrams in T9 (which have no reference names!) imply that any centre-section aero can legally be of UNLIMITED WIDTH. This may be in contradiction to the vague wording, but the wording does NOT explicitly ban wide centre aero.

Any "Powered Ground Effect Aero" is most easily controlled by a minimum ground clearance requirement in the GAZ above. Or if you want to be explicit about it, then move the GE Rule to section T2. (Note that much, much more aero-DF than is currently being achieved is possible in the current Rules, more than any Team would likely get with Powered GE, but neither the students nor the RC realise this yet...)

T9.7 - Stability....
==============
Maybe a short, general Rule can be put in the T2 section covering "stability and strength" of all parts of the car. So all bodywork, aero devices, exhaust pipes, whatever, are covered by the same Rule.

T2.2 - Sharp Edges...
================
Similarly, a general Rule somewhere in T2.2 should cover the issue of sharp edges on any and all parts of the car. Essentially, NO exposed edges ANYWHERE capable of cutting someone, and maybe "... minimum radii of 1 mm on any edge or corner that can be contacted by a sphere 0.3 m in diameter..." to cover edges on the "outer surfaces" of the car. A "standard note" that used to be written on engineering drawings in the olden days was "Break all sharp edges.".
~o0o~

The above notes are a bit rushed. As noted, it is not something I am keen to spend a lot of time on, and school holidays now...

Anyway, hope the above is a little help.

Z

[Kevin Hayward]

z,




Firstly, thank you for taking the time to do all these suggested changes. Personally, I could not do it, given Kevin's guidelines that the "intention" of the Rules stay essentially unchanged.



I think an attempt (rennovation not detonation) is just a first pass.

I also think it would be great if someone like yourself did the drawings. Your diagrams are well recieved on this forum, and show clear intent. The diagrams in the rules are very bad, and have been for about as long as I have been reading them. The quality would not have been acceptable in any company I have been involved with.

Hand drafted diagrams tend to work better in this sort of documentation, where intent needs to be shown without set dimensions.

Kev

[mech5496]

I will second Kev on the above. On a side note, I went through Articles 1 & 2 and partly through Article 3. The "clean document" is still a WIP and not uploaded yet, however I would like to share my notes on the changelog regarding those two Articles here.

· T1.2.1 slightly reworded
· T1.2.2 “Replacement tires and brake pads must be identical in material/ composition/ size to those presented and approved at Technical Inspection” changed to “replacement parts should be approved and marked in Technical Inspection”. This could be altered to include the “mark 4 random tires to use” as done in FSG.
· T1.2.3, removed the examples and added that “Compliance might be checked at any point during the event”
· T2.1, requirement (c) combined with the figure makes all other wording redundant. I would paint keep-out zones red instead. Note that this rule could be much more straightforward and consolidated with Aero rules.
· T2.2, changed “from the front of the vehicle” to “from the front bulkhead”. Also “back to the roll bar main hoop or firewall” part is too abstract. What if the firewall is 10cm behind the MRH? Does that mean that the cockpit can be open on the sides? “Back to the firewall” is a more appropriate wording IMO. Additionally “minimal openings” should be defined. How much is minimal? 2mm? 15mm? A rule stating the intent would be much better here, something along the lines of “The driver compartment should be enclosed by bodywork in such way that track debris is prevented from entering the car”
· T2.4, I cannot see the purpose of such a rule, however it is retained.

Things up to here are pretty clean and straightforward, with the exception of the "keep-out zones", on which further action is required (consolidating with Aero rules and better wording/schematics to make it clear). Article 3 however is really messy. The intention is to restructure it, in order to keep all material-related regulations, all spaceframe regulations and all monocoque regulations together. My proposal is to define ONE baseline tube for each application (MRH, SIS, etc.) and ONE minimum WT for each case as well. Teams would be allowed to use the thinner tubes if same EI, cross-sectional area etc. is proved (also by testing). That would consolidate T3.4 and T3.6 to a single table, making it easier to read and understand, and also shorter.

[mech5496]

Apologies but it has been busy as hell around here lately, so not enough time to keep working on it so far. However, if you have some specific suggestions/rationale such as presented in the thread of 2015 Aero rules, please post them here in a structured manner in order to include them in the working document.

[Dunk Mckay]

Time to resurrect this thread.

Following from the discussion on the FSUK 2016 thread:
There needs to be better rules for controlling aero dimensions (i.e. a fixed sized, not one tied to the wheel dimensions).
Clearly defined penalties that are less severe than full disqualification for lesser rule infringements.
Consolidate and clarify rules on when cars can/will be inspected, and where onus lies for illegal cars that have already been inspected and passed.

I also posed the question of the relevance to the competition of the Alternative Frame rules. Unless someone can come up with an example of a reasonably well designed car from the last 3 years, that made good use of the AF rules; I would motion that they not be included.

EDIT:
I have a draft proposal for aero dimensions, that replaces and dramatically simplifies the open wheel, bodywork and aerodynamic rules into well defined "keep-in" volumes. I shall endeavour to type it up and post them on here by the end of the day.
Visuals would not be required, but would be useful, so I shall try to put some together as well (although probably not today).

[Dunk Mckay]

T2.1-2.4 and all of T9.1-9.5 (of 2017 rules) replaced with:


T2.1 - Vehicle configuration
The vehicle must have four (4) wheels that are not in a straight line, configured in pairs which are aligned on two distinct axes (front and rear).

T2.2 - Wheel base
The car must have a wheelbase of at least 1525mm (60 inches). The wheelbase is measured from the center of ground contact of the front and rear tires with the wheels pointed straight ahead.

T2.3 - Vehicle Track
With the wheels pointed straight ahead, the minimum 'inside track', measured as the shortest distance between the innermost surfaces of the tires, is 850mm* (33.4 inches). The smaller track of the vehicle must be no less than 75% of the larger track.

T2.4 Keep-out zones

With the exception of the front and main roll hoops, the main hoop bracing, the driver’s seat and harness, all parts of the car most obey the following location rules:

a) No further forwards than 700mm (27.5 inches) ahead of the front most point of the front tires.
b) No further rearwards than 250mm (9.8 inches) behind the rear most surface of the rear tires.
c) No further than 650mm** (25.6 inches) from the centre plane of the car.
d) If further than 425mm* (16.7 inches) from the centre plane of the car, then no higher than 500mm (19.7 inches), or 250mm (9.8 inches) if ahead of the front most point of the front tires.
e) If further than 425mm* (16.7 inches) from the centre plane of the car, must be further than 75mm ahead of the forward most point of any tires rearwards of the part in question, and 75mm (3 inches) rearwards of the rear most point of any tires ahead of the part in question.
f) If rearward of the forward most point of the driver head restraint, excluding any padding, then no higher than 1200mm.
g) If forward of the forward most point of the head rest mounting structure, then must be no higher than 750***mm (29.5 inches), and must not not obstruct driver field of view or egress, as defined in T4.7 & T4.8.
h) Excluded from the above rules (a to g) is any part located within one of four (4) cylindrical volumes, each aligned with the central axis of one of the tires, that extend from 425mm* (16.7 inches) from the from the center plane of the car, to the outboard most point of the respective tire.

All heights measured from flat ground, without a driver.
All measurement taken with the wheels pointed straight ahead.
Provided geometry is judged as being symmetrical, all lateral measurements will be taken as total widths and divided by two (2).
If features are asymmetrical, a center plane will be derived as passing through the center points between the innermost surfaces of the front and rear tires, and perpendicular to the ground.

T2.5 - Visible access
(Remains unchanged)

T2.6 - Forward facing edges
All forward facing edges ahead of the front tires, must have a minimum radius of 3mm (0.2 inches), which must be achieved with permanently affixed components and with specific design intent.
For example, pushed on pieces of split tubing relying on friction for retention are not a satisfactory method of achieving the radii.


*Note that the 850mm minimum inner track ties in with the 425mm distance from centre plane. The only way of providing a fixed dimension for wing widths, that guarantees that they will never be any front wing above 250mm in front of the tires, but still allowing for a nosecone above 250mm was to restrict how far inboard the tires could go. I tied some of the other dimensions back to this for simplicity.
**The 650mm is again arbitrary, and open to change, but I had to put something in for maximum width that didn’t tie in to tire dimensions, and 650 seemed a nice round number that would be narrower than the tires on every FSAE car I’ve ever seen.
***My most contentious point. I didn’t feel like just saying driver egress and field of view were sufficient, and required a value for my diagram to look right. I also didn't want to limit front roll hoop heights, hence it being infeasibly high. Would happily remove this 750mm constraint and come up with a better diagram if folks think it's unnecessary.

Tried uploading image to fourm, but failed, despite being within acceptable size limits.

[NickFavazzo]

Comments from a quick glance.
T2.2: min wheelbase could be measured from the wheel centres projected onto the ground (plumb line). To be fair its all the same...
T2.3: min track measured from the innermost bottom edge of the rim, removes the tyre from the equation and gives a decent hard surface.
T2.4: I like it, it could be drawn up and easily overlaid on the design, allowing designers to easily find deltas to limits. Big issue is a vertical reference plane (when you take into account ride-height can change etc)

[Dunk Mckay]

Measuring any part of the wheel, rim or tire, is always going to be a challenge. Flexibility of the tire or different setups, should not be too much of a concern, because the requirements must be met at all times regardless of wear, pressure, expansion, setup, etc. So you'd have to leave a margin of error (a realistic engineering challenge is to know how much margin you need).

Measuring width ways will always be a challenge, because of camber, which is why I've use terms like "innermost". So you would, as you say, take a plumb line to the the ground.

Wheelbase measurement is the same as current rules. The trouble with wheel centers is that it either requires specialized equipment, to make sure you are properly centered, and would be affected by toe angles. Additionally some competitor's wheels don't really have any centers to speak off, so that would be a real struggle.

What would potentially be interesting would be to come up with a simple and cheap design for a measurement tool, with four cornered adjusters that sit on the ground and tighten to the point of contact around each tire, attached to a graduated frame that sits flat under that, from which you can read all the required measurements. The specifications could then be sent to all teams so they know exactly how they are going to be measured. But I think that could be a bit elaborate, and would face resistance form some event organizers.

[Z]

Dunk,


Following from the discussion on the FSUK 2016 thread...
... I also posed the question of the relevance to the competition of the Alternative Frame rules. Unless someone can come up with an example of a reasonably well designed car from the last 3 years, that made good use of the AF rules, I would motion that they not be included.

And on the FSUK-16 thread you wrote:

... the AF section ... has always seemed like a bit of a waste of space, and a big section of the rules that you have to read, that doesn't seem to add anything to the competition. ... So much so that FSG does not accept them unless they have already passed scrutineering at a previous FSAE event.

I have always maintained that if you're making a space frame car, it's because you've gone down the road of simplifying your design process. That being the case, why would you then over-complicate things by using the AF rules?

I'm sure people will say there could be some elaborate design that has some clever benefit, but doesn't work under the normal rules. But realistically I don't see that happening often enough (or at all) for it to be worth it.

I wish I had more time to cover the many other issues regarding "changing the Rules", but right now I want to stress that the AF section has the "seed" of a good set of frame rules within it, albeit buried under much nonsense.

Considering the 2017-18 version of the Rules on the FSAE website, there are ~56 pages of "Part T - General Technical Requirements", followed by 8 pages of "Part AF - Alternative Frame Rules". I agree with you that these ~64 pages can be greatly shortened. I reckon ten pages could comfortably cover it all.

But, and importantly, I see most of the larger "Part T" as the redundant part, mainly because much of it acts AGAINST the "education of young engineers". The tube-frame rules in Part T, and much else there, is very PRESCRIPTIVE.

In essence, these Rules tell the students "Thou shall build thine frame (and the rest of the car...) as detailed here. Thou MUST NOT THINK about it. Thou must SIMPLY DO WHAT WE TELL YOU!".

The end result is that countless tube-frame cars that I have seen have a side-view very similar to that shown in Figure 7 on page 44. This is a piss-poor design for torsional stiffness, because the shear forces are carried by long, narrow, triangles. I repeat, BAD DESIGN! Nevertheless, many Teams blindly copy this design because, in essence, they are told to do so and it is thus the easiest option. No education happening there...

By contrast, the "AF" section presents a set of FUNCTIONAL requirements. Something like, "Thou shall build thine frame ... so the top of Main-Roll-Hoop can sustain a force of F kN, in X,Y,Z direction, with less than D deflection ... [and with similar functional requirements imposed on other parts...]".

Unfortunately, the "AF" section then goes and spoils this good approach by mandating that these functional requirements are "proved" via the least reliable method known to man (or, at least, by me), namely FEA! I am sure that it is this onus on the students to "prove via long-winded correspondence with the Officials..." that ultimately turns Teams away from the AF section.

The madness of all this is that an FS/FSAE frame is really a very small thing. The easiest way to really prove that it meets the functional requirements, is to really build it, and then subject it to real, full-scale, tests. That is, build it, load it up, measure the deflection, then check for any permanent damage!

Of course, if the students want to do a year's worth of FEA first, or perhaps a week's worth of hand calcs to help predict if their rough-draft frame is in the ball-park, then fine, let them. But the only "proof" they really need provide to the Officials, namely that their frame meets the functional requirements, is a real-world test at scrutineering. Bring car to comp, let the Scrutineers load it up, and if no failure, then good-to-go.

I have a whole lot more to say about how these tests could/should be done. But very briefly for now, a few more tests than currently in the "AF" section would be a good idea, and they should be done somewhat differently. Just some examples:
1. The MRH tests (acting both forwards and rearwards) should be "impact tests" (think Izod/Charpy pendulum-test), not just "static" load tests.
2. I would like to see the floor given an upward push acting on a small area located anywhere under the driver. Say, something like a tennis-ball being pushed upward with force 300 N (~30 kg, or more?).
3. The Side-Impact requirement should reflect the fact that the other car's IA (presumably the bit that is T-boning your car) can be as small as 10 cm high x 20 cm wide (x 20 cm long). That is, the current 25 cm diameter "impactor" is much too big. A minimum size IA should not easily fit between SIS tubes. So do a real "side intrusion" test with an "impactor" of frontal-area = minimum-size-IA, and acting with some reasonable load (perhaps half load expected of a collision, to test integrity, but not damage the car?).
~o0o~

Again, much more to say, but for now I should counter the expected criticism that all the above frame load-testing is going to be too much for the Scrutineers to do at comp.

Firstly, not all tests have to be done on all cars. The Scrutineers can simply wave through the cars with frames that look like railway bridges, and only pick the cars with fragile looking MRHs to undergo the "MRH-Pendulum-Impact-Tests". Or, if flimsy looking floor, then test it, and so on.

Secondly, consider the current "functional" requirement that prevents cars rolling over in SP, AX, and Enduro (or at least minimises the number of rollovers). This Rule is simply that the cars must pass the "Tilt-Table-Test". This Rule requires that the organisers build a rig that can carry out the TT test on all the cars, and do it reasonably quickly (hence some hydraulically powered rigs, etc.). But imagine how many extra pages would be added to the Rule Book if this simple real-world test was replaced by a long-winded "prescriptive" list, that mandated every detail of how masses must be distributed in order to keep the CG low wrt track-width, blah, blah...

To show how few words are needed for the functional requirements of "rollover stability" and "fluid-system integrity", here they are IN TOTAL.

"T6.7 Rollover Stability.
T6.7.1 The track and center of gravity of the car must combine to provide adequate rollover stability.
T6.7.2 Rollover stability will be evaluated on a tilt table using a pass/fail test. The vehicle must not roll when tilted at an angle of sixty degrees (60°) to the horizontal in either direction, corresponding to 1.7 G’s. The tilt test will be conducted with the tallest driver in the normal driving position."

and,

"T8.5 Integrity of systems carrying fluids – Tilt Test.
T8.5.1 During technical inspection, the car must be capable of being tilted to a forty-five degree (45°) angle without leaking fluid of any type.
T8.5.2 The tilt test will be conducted with the vehicle containing the maximum amount of fluids it will carry during any test or event."
~o0o~

Note also that the "Cockpit Template" rules are a good example of functional requirements, and hence are, IMO, GOOD RULES. There is no long-winded mandating of tube diameters or wall thicknesses, or where and in which direction the tubes must be, but simply that sufficient empty space be provided for the template to pass through.

Similarly, your above suggestion of "keep-in volumes" are also good functional requirements. (I called these "Green-Allowable-Zones" earlier in this thread. I have quite a few suggestions for how to more reliably specify these GAZs, but maybe later...)
~o0o~

The above Tilt-Table tests, Cockpit-Template tests, and so on, are real-life, proof-of-the-pudding, tests. I suggest that "frame integrity and safety" be also specified and tested in a similar way. The Rules should guarantee safety in a realistic way, and not just hope for it via the current, long-winded (~50 pages!), prescriptive recipe.

Maybe more later...

Z

(PS. "Keep-In-Zone" dimensions would be better referenced from a horizontal-plank (maybe 3 m long x 0.5 m wide) raised up from under the car and supporting it. Then all X,Y,Z dimensions are referenced from this plank using squares, etc. Picture "build-table".)

[BillCobb]

I'd rather see mention of two wheel lift than "roll" for rollover stability. That means a front and a rear and in both directions. You mean it can't roll at all ? Just a teeny weeny bit? And somebody WILL roll one at low speed with just the right dynamic maneuver.

[Dunk Mckay]

Z,

Those are perfectly good reasons why the AF frame rules present a better engineering challenge. But if no one has used them effectively for years, it is also unlikely any team will try to use them effectively in future.

Any team that is up for taking a more challenging approach to their chassis design, is almost guaranteed to take the monocoque route. My thoughts were that frame rules, now, are essentially for teams that are aiming for a simpler design process. In such cases the gains from using an AF frame (if they get it right...) are relatively minor. But the hr gains from being able to throw together a legal frame design quickly, and then spend their limited time and human resources on the rest of the car are significant. Based on those assumptions, the AF rules become somewhat redundant. Interesting as they are.

There are also lots of teams that use the standard rules and build something very far from the "prescribed design" you mention. Usually adding in many unnecessary members that do nothing to improve their design. So in some cases, even using simple rules that seems to basically tell you what to design, some teams fall short.

In essence, while the AF frame rules may present the opportunity for the best possible frame design, I do not expect anyone to ever make use of them. I know that's not a great reason for getting rid of them. But it's an easy 8 pages to lose, that will make little if any difference to the series.

[NickFavazzo]

Food for thought, a recent uwam car essentially took the "prescribed" minimum chassis and built that, as we didn't have a huge need for the torsional rigidity. I wasn't on the chassis team for that but that is largely what I remember.

Another thought. Why do we need mandated minimum wheelbases and track widths? too big and it is just plain slow, too small and you physically cant fit things in. We struggled to make a minimum wheelbase car with the cbr engine. Roll over stability etc is tested elsewhere.

Regarding aero, what about giving a max height and width relative to track/wheelbase and that is it. What is inherently wrong with covering the wheels?

[Dunk Mckay]

Many teams to the same. Nick. I When I designed my uni's first space frame for 5 years I essentially put in the points for suspension attachment and those mandated by the rules and connected the dots. I added a small number of additional members to meet the stiffness target we had set. In testing we found we didn't really need the extra stiffness, so the following year they built the same design (tweaked) without those extra members.

The reason for mandating a minimum track is so as to have a fixed value for the width of the "green box" as Z puts it, above 250mm ahead of the front wheels, as well as for rear wing width. In keeping with the "nothing in front of the front tires above 250mm rule. You either have to specify that distance relative to the tires (which recent history has shown is just not a realistic solution), or specify a minimum track, equal to the maximum width of the >250mm front green box.

Minimum track is justified as it limits how much of the cars ends up hanging over the front wheels. The 700mm rule does this IF it applies to all parts of the car (currently only applies to aero). But many people argue that a big safety improvement would be to mandate that pedal boxes be located behind the front axis. This would mean most cars having much longer wheelbases (closer to 1700-1800mm). But front end collisions are not really a safety issue on current track layouts, so it hasn't been adjusted. It's mostly a case of "if it ain't broke" for the 1525mm rule.

Covering the wheels has a few downsides, some minor, some less so.
- It's one more thing to have to remove for judges and scrutineers to see what's underneath. (in fact it's 4 more things)
- They essentially would have to be made from carbon and molded, which makes them expensive and time consuming to manufacture. Giving even more advantage to teams with bigger budgets and more team members/resources.
- It's something else to break, increasing the unreliability of cars.
- Additional rules regarding the strength of mounting said fairings would be required, otherwise they risk falling off due to aero loads and being flung in all directions by the wheels (including at the driver's neck).
- Formula Student has always been an open wheeled formula. It's tradition, having wheels fairings would change the aesthetic of the event. That may not seem important to some, but to others it is. The exact same reasoning applies in Formula 1.

[JT A.]

In the spirit of this discussion, why is there a minimum wheelbase rule at all?

[JulianH]

Why do we need such complicated rules with keep out zones?

Can't we just say "no part of the car besides the main hoop can be higher than XXXXmm" + "no part wider than XXXXmm" + "driver egress must be unobstructed by parts" + "power ground effect is prohibited"?

With this we perfectly set the maximum achievable downforce and everything can be measured without reference to other car parts.

Why do we need the 75% rule? Why not set a minimum and maximum track width and people can what they want to do?

[Dunk Mckay]

I think part of the idea with this was to simplify the rules, while keeping things similar to what they currently are.

There are good reasons for limiting things like having wheel fairings, as I've discussed above. A simple max height and width, also doesn't allow for taller roll hoops, while still restricting aero to "safe" limits (or more competitive limits for teams that can't afford/manage big aero packages).

The current keep-out rules came about because of people complaining about the ambiguity of the term "open wheeled racer."

The 75% rule, as far as I can tell restricts aesthetics (so they look like people expect race cars to look), but also prevents Reliant Robin type situations, where teams build what are as good as 3 wheelers, that might have some awesome aero opportunities but are incredibly unstable in roll.

I feel my proposal, or something similar, would be simple enough. Easily made into diagrams (which I'm still struggling to upload).

[NickFavazzo]

...

Covering the wheels has a few downsides, some minor, some less so.
- It's one more thing to have to remove for judges and scrutineers to see what's underneath. (in fact it's 4 more things)
- They essentially would have to be made from carbon and molded, which makes them expensive and time consuming to manufacture. Giving even more advantage to teams with bigger budgets and more team members/resources.
- It's something else to break, increasing the unreliability of cars.
- Additional rules regarding the strength of mounting said fairings would be required, otherwise they risk falling off due to aero loads and being flung in all directions by the wheels (including at the driver's neck).
- Formula Student has always been an open wheeled formula. It's tradition, having wheels fairings would change the aesthetic of the event. That may not seem important to some, but to others it is. The exact same reasoning applies in Formula 1.

Too be fair they are all pretty petty reasons.
- one more thing to remove, its not different from other bodywork, its up to the team to remove anyway, not a big job.
-we made ours a few years ago from scrap carbon, using a styrofoam mold and masking tape as release, then just spent time sanding them before painting them ourselves. cheap, easy and looked great.
-something else to break, what about all the extra components associated with conventional suspension? way more parts with wishbones than our beams. Trivial reason.
-falling off due to loads, thats just engineering design and crappy designs should be picked up in scrute. If it breaks it breaks = black flag. Its in the teams best interest to properly design and manufacture the part. I would be more worried about a wing coming off...
-Screw tradition, its an engineering competition, open wheels are just plain inefficient. Our wheel pods a few years back were pretty close to legal and achieved the intended purpose.

Not having a go, I just don't like dismissing ideas so quickly.

[Z]

Dunk,

I guess I was not clear enough. I will try again.

Here are some of the BAD parts of the "AF" section.

"AF1.4 Notice of Intent - Teams planning to build a vehicle to this alternative rule set...
... must notify the Rules Committee ... by the date specified...
... detailing your team’s finite element capability and showing you can meet all [ALL!!!] analytical requirements...
... must include the email addresses and phones numbers of the team members who can answer any questions ...
... include ... your analysis approach, what software you used, the element types, mesh quality ... boundary conditions ...
... The Rules Committee will ... try to respond with their approval/disapproval within 15 days...
... SRCFs must be submitted no later than the due date ... [B]Penalties ... will be imposed...
... Good analysis practice must be used ... all assumptions ... are subject to approval...
... A Nastran analysis deck and supporting documentation must be submitted...
... Tubes with wall thickness less than 0.047 inches ... cannot be included...
... Holes in tubes ... need to be applied to a shell or solid model of the tube with the hole or cutout geometry modeled...
... Offsets between tubes at nodes need a detailed analysis..."

Clearly, this tells the Teams they must wade through massive amounts of BUREAUCRATIC RED-TAPE, starting day one!
~o0o~

Here is one of the GOOD parts of the "AF" section.

"ARTICLE 4: STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS
AF4.1 Main Roll Hoop, Bracing and Bracing Supports
AF4.1.1 Load Applied: Fx = 6.0 kN, Fy=5.0 kN, Fz=-9.0 kN
AF4.1.2 Application point: Top of Main Roll Hoop
AF4.1.3 Boundary Condition: Fixed displacement ... of the bottom nodes of [F&MRH]...
AF4.1.4 Max Allowable Deflection: 25mm
AF4.1.5 Failure must not occur anywhere in structure."

Brief, and to the point!

The above is then followed by these similar "functional" load-test requirements.

"AF4.2 Front Roll Hoop...
AF4.3 Side Impact...
AF4.4 Front Bulkhead...
AF4.5 Shoulder Harness Attachment...
AF4.6 Lap & Anti-Submarine Harness Attachment...
AF4.7 Front Bulkhead ... Off Axis..."

Note that some of these could be combined into one test, such as pushing rearward on Front Bulkhead (= 4.4) while restraining the car with the seat-belt mounts (= 4.5 + 4.6). Also, I would do an upward push test on the floor, as mentioned last post, and/or other variations...

So, if the above are taken to be "real-world test" requirements, then the Team is being told to build a car, bring it to comp, and then expect the car to be poked and proded in all the directions that are thought necessary to ensure the safety of the driver. There is NO RED TAPE!
~o0o~

But, most importantly, the above functional requirements apply regardless of whether the Team wants to build a steel-tube-spaceframe car, or a CF/Aluminium-sandwich-monocoque, or a bamboo-reinforced-concrete-canoe. Any construction material/method is fine, just as long as real-world tests prove it strong enough to protect the driver.

So, all these following sections can be deleted from the Rules (along with much pruning of other sections).
"T3.4 Baseline Tubing...
T3.5 Alternative Tubing ... Geometry...
T3.6 Alternative Steel Tubing [with attendant "H-tests"]...
T3.7 Aluminium Tubing...
T3.8 Composite Materials...
T3.9 SES and SCRF [= much red-tape]...
...
T3.24 SIS for Tubeframe...
T3.26 Composite Spaceframe...
T3.27 Monocoques General +++++ [with many equivalency calcs and tests...]..."
~o0o~

To summarize.
* The idea of allowable "keep-in" zones is good.
* Also good are the "cockpit/percy templates" (effectively, "keep-out" zones internal to the car).
* Also good are real-world load test requirements (to help ensure driver safety), the seeds of which are in the "AF" section.
So, keep the above parts in the Rules.

Then, most of the rest of pages 24 to 87 can be deleted. This will give a clearer Rule Book, which is also more conducive to "educating young engineers"!

Z

(PS1: Much better tubeframe designs would be possible without the currently overly restrictive/prescriptive "Baseline" Rules.
PS2: I agree "minimum wheelbase" could be tossed...)

[Dunk Mckay]

Nick and Z,

I agree with you both. If it were down to me I would absolutely have full wheel fairings, and physical testing of vehicle safety. But if we're trying to put something together that would be presented to the rules committee (a dream, I know), then it has to be something they might actually be willing to consider.

To do that it's got to stick with a lot of what's already there, but work towards the teams' needs for clarity and simplicity.

The vast majority of the overly complicated, inconsistent part of the rules, were added by the rules committee to suite they're image of what FSAE should be. Whether their reasoning is right wrong, flawed, petty, or otherwise. That's not going to change any time soon. So for now at least, we have to play by their rules (pun intended).

---

I would make one note with regards to simply setting "real-world-test" requirements, instead of prescribing a few extra specifics.

So many teams would fail this! Most teams currently pass the structural requirements in scrutineering because they have to pre-submit designs for approval, then at the event they just chack they have indeed made what they said they would.
But if they had to actually come up with their own design, do calculations, and run simulations using that super accurate tool that is FEA? There would be some many mistakes in those calculations, and faulty assumptions that the FEA numerical results were accurate. At least half the teams would present at the event, only to see their months of work crushed or torn apart by the scrutineers.
The teams that don't have this happen, will be the ones that could afford to build their chassis early, test it, scratch their heads because it collapsed, then build another one twice as heavy just to be safe. Or they will be teams that got their calculations wrong in the opposite direction, and turn up with an over heavy car in the first place.

It's a nice idea. But it pains me to say it, a lot of the teams simply aren't at that level. Another failing of the higher education system I'm afraid, Z.

[Z]

Dunk,


But if we're trying to put something together that would be presented to the rules committee (a dream, I know), then it has to be something they might actually be willing to consider.

Sadly, the RC have shown that they are NOT willing to consider ANY "outside" input.

(Over the years I have pointed out many typos, inconsistencies, or poorly worded sections of the Rules that could be fixed very EASILY. These fixes would not change any "intent" of the Rules, but they would make them a lot clearer. EG1 - "Main Hoop Bracing Supports" are defined in terms of "Main Hoop Bracing", but NOWHERE is "Main Hoop Bracing" defined! And much more like that...)

Anyway, the reason the RC ignores any input is because they can. They are a monopoly, the only show in town.

So I think the best way forward, for the sake of future FSers, is to put together a draft version of a reworked Rule Book, and SUBMIT IT TO THE TEAMS. I accept that a first draft version should not be too radical a departure from the existing Rules. Perhaps just a heavy pruning of the existing Rules, with some small additions to fix the inconsistencies (like adding a definition of "MHB"!).

I reckon that if a significant majority of Teams in the UK show support for the "new Rules", then the FSUK organising body (IMech?) would feel compelled to adopt the new Rules. And if they do NOT adopt the new Rules, then get a new organising body! Say, the Teams themselves, somewhat like the way FSG operates.
~o0o~


... with regards to ... "real-world-test" requirements ... So many teams would fail this!
... At least half the teams would present at the event, only to see their months of work crushed or torn apart by the scrutineers.

Yep, pretty much what happens now on the Enduro track!

(Only had time for brief check of attrition rates at FSUK and FSG-16, but after ~30 years of these comps they are still dropping like flies! Can it really be that hard to "... build a car that drives 30 kms, at an average speed of 50 kph..."??? :D)

But seriously, the size of the load tests given in the AF section are quite mild, and easy to do (eg. clamp car to stout build-table, attached heavy-duty ratchet-strap to top of MRH, hook other end of strap to table, fit large fish-scale somewhere in-line, and ratchet away!). Teams SHOULD be doing lots of these tests just to "validate" their designs, namely to get pretty graphs for Design Event. And such (simple!) tests would go a long way to improving their lap-times (because better "toe/camber-stiffness", etc.).

The "threat" of a Team's car very embarassingly crumpling-up like a tissue box during scrutineering, may actually improve their chances of finishing Endurance.

Z

(PS1. Now let me count the number of times I have seen a wheel go AWOL during Brake-Test... <- Another "real-world test" that I like. :)
PS2. A very well-re$ourced Team at a recent Oz-comp managed to fail the "foot-box template" test. Ah, students! [!exasperated-emoji!]
PS3. The large number of wheel AWOLs from fatigued wheel-centres makes "Article 11. Fasteners" redundant. No point spending ages lock-wiring all your Grade 8.8 fasteners when the wheel-centre falls apart. Fortunately, it is the slow "AutoX" speeds that make all these failures relatively safe.)

[Dunk Mckay]

Yep, pretty much what happens now on the Enduro track!


I just don't want to make it worse.

For fun, could we impose a mandatory submission of a project plan, with timing, physical test plans, manufacturing schedule, etc? Non-submissions, or submission of an inadequate project plan would disqualify that teams entry. Similar to FSG's Vehicle Status Video or Report, only immediately after team registration.

[JulianH]

I just don't want to make it worse.

For fun, could we impose a mandatory submission of a project plan, with timing, physical test plans, manufacturing schedule, etc? Non-submissions, or submission of an inadequate project plan would disqualify that teams entry. Similar to FSG's Vehicle Status Video or Report, only immediately after team registration.

Dunk,

FSG did that back when they introduced the Electric class. I think it backfired quite a bit because it took a long time, and especially arrogant teams (like Zurich was back then ;)) did not take it serious and handed in bull.. that just was not a good thing.

For me, the target would be to make just "Safety" rules (like FSG does with Scrutineering now) and then we will find a simple solution to reduce the performance of the teams to a safe level (e.g. like the super simple Aero rules I suggested) and that should be it.
If you get the support from the teams, that will have a chance.
Just reducing the wording and submit it to the Rules Committee is waste of time.
Monash proposed some nice Aero rules back when the "wings were cut" but they were 100% ignored by the Committee.

[Michael Royce]

This is a copy of what I have just posted under the discussion on the FS DQ. But I now see Julian and Dunk have opened a new thread.

A couple of comments about rules in general, and then for the benefit of all, I suggest we move on.

1. Dunk, I don't think becoming a Design Judge at Formula Student is a way to influence the rules. It would not get you a vote directly. But I would think that Neill Anderson is always looking for good people.

2. As far as I can make out, the Rules Committee is made up of:
- A chairman appointed by SAE-I for a 2-3 year term (The last one was Andrew Deakin from FS UK, an RPI and Leeds FSAE/FS alum.)
- A vice chairman appointed by SAE-I who will be the next chairman.
- The FSAE Program Manager from SAE-I (Kaley Zundel)
- The 2 lead technical inspectors from FSAE US.
- One senior Design Judge.
- One representative from each of the non-US FSAE/FS competitions that are a part of the official Competition Series, i.e. Australia, Brazil, Italy, UK, Austria, Germany and Japan.

Yes, it is US focused, but SAE-I is the lead organizer and they are a US based organization. They publish the base rules.

3. Posting suggestions for rules changes or asking for rules changes on this Forum are unlikely to go anywhere. While there are a handful of design judges who frequent the Forum, I do not believe that any of the current members of the Rules Committee do so.

If someone wants a specific rule changed, I think the only way to get it considered is to send the proposed change to the Rules Committee through www.fsaeonline.com or through your competition's rep. on the Committee, quoting the existing rule and then the wording of the proposed rule AND giving a detailed reason why the rule should be changed. That last is most important, because the first thing the Committee will do with any submission is ask, "is there a good reason for a change?" And just saying "we don't like the rule" won't get very far! Bear in mind that 95-98% of the technical rules are safety related in some way. Very few are performance related, e.g. restrictor diameter and wing sizes. I believe that the Committee is receptive to clarification of existing rules.

Now, back to answering questions for FS UK and Formula Hybrid.

Michael Royce

[mech5496]

So, FSG 2017 rules are out.

https://www.formulastudent.de/fileadmin/user_upload/all/2017/Rules2017_V1.0.pdf

Scrolling through the document I spotted quite a few interesting changes, especially in the aero section.....

[Z]

Harry,

My first impressions from a very quick skim.
~o0o~

GOOD - At first glance of the Contents pages it seems a logically well-structured document. Much better than the FSAE version.
~o0o~

GOOD - Only 126 pages compared with 184 for current FSAE-2017/8-Rules. A ~30% reduction is a great start, especially considering the FSG Rules include extra sections on Driverless Vehicles. More pruning please!
~o0o~

BAD - "A3.1.2 All team members are required to cooperate with, and follow all instructions from the officials." Really? Follow ALL instructions, regardless of what they are?

How about, "For smooth running of what is primarily an educational event, all team members are requested to cooperate with all reasonable instructions from the officials."

After which these next two (modified) Rules can be used.
"A3.2 Official Instructions
A3.2.1 Failure of a team member to follow any reasonable instruction or command directed specifically to that team or team member will result in a twenty-five point penalty to that team.
A3.3 Arguments with Officials
A3.3.1 Unreasonable argumentation with, or disobedience toward, any official may result in the team being eliminated from the competition."

So, ask them nicely first, but if they get really stupid about it, then kick them out.

(And I suggest similar changes to other similar Rules. So make it "velvet glove" most of the time, and only pull out the "iron fist" on those very rare occasions that it is needed.)
~o0o~

GOOD...ish - The general Technical section, starting at "T 1 GENERAL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS, T1.1 Vehicle Configuration...", is a bit better structured than the FSAE version, but could still be improved a lot. I think there is still too much carryover from the FSAE Rules.

For a start, the "keep-out zones" are good, but they need more accuracy in the way they are defined. Specifically, they need more clarity in the way they will be scrutineered.

I suggest a ~0.5 metre wide by 3 metre long "plank" be used as the notional "horizontal ground-plane". This plank would be raised up under the car, supporting the car so its tyres are OFF the ground. Most dimensions would then be referenced from this plank. (The FSG SIS-rules seem to do something similar now). All references to "vertical" in the Rules would then mean "in a direction perpendicular to the plane of the plank".

My key point here is that a car that is in post-event re-scrutineering might have lost some air from its right-side tyres during the event. This means that the car leans a little to the right, even on horizontal ground. So now the rear wing might be leaning a little over the RR wheel, based on a "vertical plane" drawn from the ground. I think a DQ here (due to lost air in tyres) would not be in the spirit of this competition.
~o0o~

VERY BAD - "T1.6.1 Steering systems using cables or belts for actuation are prohibited."

Aaack!!! Cable-controls have been so successful on so many (big!) aeroplanes over the years! I am absolutely sure I could do a cable-steer system that is stronger, stiffer, lighter, lower friction, less bump-steer..., than the vast majority of FS steering-linkages out there. And at MUCH LOWER COST!

Ahh, too much suppression of progress... :(
~o0o~

ALSO BAD - "T1.6.3 The steering system must have positive steering stops that prevent the steering linkages from locking up. The stops must be placed on the rack..."

Firstly, for a lot of good engineering reasons "steering-stops" are best placed as near to the wheels as possible. (Ie. "stops-on-the-rack" can still let a wheel go "over-centre" due to flex/slop of the tie-rods. Stops-at-the-wheel prevent this from happening.)

Secondly, and more importantly, why the implicit assumption that there will be a "rack"? Why not some other form of gear system, such as that used very successfully by ECU? And why not direct, go-kart-style, Pitman-Arm steering? Perhaps 60 degrees lock-to-lock, with E or H-power-assist, for lightning fast, feather-light, steering? (BTW, I once converted a 30 ton four-wheel-loader to 60 degree go-kart steering. Worked great!)

Again, this implicit requirement to have a "rack" prevents progress.

Best fix for these T1.6 Steering Rules is the delete button.
~o0o~

GOOD - "T2.2 Definitions ... Roll hoop bracing..."
Yeay! At last the RHB gets a definition.
~o0o~

VERY SIGNIFICANT - "T7 Aerodynamic Devices... T7.3 Devices Forward of the Front Axle Centerline... T7.4 Devices Rearward of the Main Hoop..."

These changed aero-rules make a massive change to the potential performance of different concepts. From my quick read these new rules make much more rear-biased aero-downforce possible, whereas the old (FSAE) rules made it easier for forward-biased downforce (wrt the wheels).

These new FSG aero-rules make a "60+R%, brown-go-kart-with-aero-undertray" an even more awesome prospect than before. I can see the massive rear-endplates now, with their "active aero-Fy/Cz-vectoring technology" (ie. "steer-by-rudder")! :)
~o0o~

And many more minor comments, such as, "T7.6 Minimum Edge Radii of Aerodynamic Devices. T7.6.1 All forward facing edges of aerodynamic devices that could contact a pedestrian must have a minimum radius of 5mm for all horizontal edges and 3mm for vertical edges."

What about edges that are NOT H or V (ie. sloping or curved edges)?

Easier just to shorten to, "... All forward facing edges and corners of aerodynamic devices that could contact a pedestrian must have a minimum radius of 3mm.". It is impossible to cut anything with a 3 mm radius edge.
~o0o~

IN SUMMARY - A great start, and definitely headed in the right direction.

I just hope that a good system is now also put into place that will take comments and suggestions for future changes to the Rules from the students, then discuss (= argue about) the merits or otherwise of those suggestions, and finally use some sort of rational process to keep improving the Rules. For example, I have already noticed quite a few spelling errors and grammatical glitches, and a formal, and preferably "open and transparent", process for notifying those deficiences would be good.

Z

[BillCobb]

Steer by hose (aka hydraulic pump/motor combo) is not unreasonable. My boat seems to like it. It should be popular in the UK because of the potential for designed-in leakage.

[mech5496]

Z,

thanks for your insight. There is a way for you to directly submit your feedback now:

https://www.formulastudent.de/feedback

[Bemo]

Thanks for the feedback first of all. I've been deeply involved in the rewriting of the rules. The idea was to generate a shorter more precise and understandable and better organised document than the original fsae rules whithout making it impossible to participate in competitions which are using the original rules.

The frame rules should result in pretty much the same designs as the original rules as it would be impossible for the teams to change anything for specific competitions in this area. But the rules are shorter and more precise.

The aero rules are a different subject. The actual target was to not make too many actual changes but to get rid of all measurenents which are given relative to the wheels or the track surface as they are highly dependant on suspension setup and therefore not really suitable.

The rules for the static events were also completely revised but I have no inside in this area as I focused on the Technical requiremts. Any feedback regarding the new rules is highliy welcome and will be definitely considered and can be given at the fsg website.

Btw: FS Austria will use the new rules as well next year. I can't tell about the other European events.

[Kevin Hayward]

Bemo,

The aero rules are much better written and much most likely easier to inspect.

They should result in significantly more downforce and some very obvious changes to basic car architecture:

- High and possibly extended (forwards) impact attenuator plates
- High cockpit sides
- Super high rear roll-hoops
- Roll hoop very rearwards

I am still more of a fan of overall height / length / width as the way to control aero, but I will say well done for what you have done with this set of the rules. I hope the theme of reduction and clarification continue.

Kev

[MCoach]

To summarize.
* The idea of allowable "keep-in" zones is good.
* Also good are the "cockpit/percy templates" (effectively, "keep-out" zones internal to the car).
* Also good are real-world load test requirements (to help ensure driver safety), the seeds of which are in the "AF" section.
So, keep the above parts in the Rules.

Z

(PS1: Much better tubeframe designs would be possible without the currently overly restrictive/prescriptive "Baseline" Rules.
PS2: I agree "minimum wheelbase" could be tossed...)

Z,

I agree with the hard test requirements from AF rules. I made the NASTRAN deck and FEA test procedures standard for our frame designs from our team because I feel they are suitable safety targets which must still be followed that are not present from the standard rule set. I think the FEA requirements from AF rules should be required for standard or AF rules. Maybe it would give SAE something new to chase after instead of drawing standards: have all teams submit their FEA analysis for the SES.

[Bemo]

I am still more of a fan of overall height / length / width as the way to control aero, but I will say well done for what you have done with this set of the rules. I hope the theme of reduction and clarification continue.
Kev

The question here is what you want to achieve. This is supposed to be a design competition. If you give fixed max. height, length and width measures for wings, you don't have to think about it anymore as a team. You just build a wing as big as possible.

Giving measures relative to other parts of the car forces the teams to THINK about the ups and downs. If you build a very high roll hoop, the bracings will also become very long and their attachement point will move rearwards. These are significant disadvantages for your chassis design. So teams have to try to figure out the best compromise. This is the intent behind this method of measurement.

Same for the AIP. If you build it very high and forward, you put a lot of extra weight in the car and the visibility of the driver might be compromised. Also hard to tell where the optimum is.

[mech5496]

I really like and support this effort. My only concern is what happens when it comes to streamlining with other competitions. Coming from a small team, we usually operate on a 2-year plan. This year we planned on attending FSUK and probably FSG/FSA. If these competitions have significantly different rule sets, it will take twice the thought before entering..

[simdens]

I understand your opinion. But this is another real life engineering problem. You have to prioritize everything. Now this includes the competitions you take part.
And perhaps FSAE will adapt their rules such that they are compatible for 2018. In that case, the problem only exists for one year.

[mech5496]

Totally agree with you, if in 2018 everything turns up to be similar. Otherwise, it would be a step backwards. Personally speaking, we have found a way around it, but for most of the teams it would be either FSG/FSA or FSUK etc.

[JulianH]

I can only second what has been said.
It is great to have these new rules.

Bemo,
one advice/favor: Please make clear to the students who exactly is the body behind those rules and who the people can talk to (over a beer at the Mahle party for example) if they want to discuss something.
When I was an active member (and sadly the rules geek of Zurich), it was super frustrating to not be able to talk to the guys that made the rules. It was like a dark anonymous amorph cloud that could not be touched.
I know how much work people put into these things and I am certain that everyone re-writing those rules thought about stuff and can explain the decisions made.
Please give the students the chance to understand it, discuss it and make the rules better every year.


It's a shame that UK decided to use the FSAE rules and therefore basically splitting the European competitions.
It was a lot of work until we have "merged" rules, therefore it's a shame to see that going in the opposite direction. Knowing the FSAE Rules Committee, I doubt that they will adapt their 2018 Rules to these "new rules"... Hopefully they prove me wrong.

(And maybe UK can finally grab a home victory know if the Germans and Dutch and Swiss don't participate ;))

[MCoach]

The question here is what you want to achieve. This is supposed to be a design competition. If you give fixed max. height, length and width measures for wings, you don't have to think about it anymore as a team. You just build a wing as big as possible.

Giving measures relative to other parts of the car forces the teams to THINK about the ups and downs. If you build a very high roll hoop, the bracings will also become very long and their attachement point will move rearwards. These are significant disadvantages for your chassis design. So teams have to try to figure out the best compromise. This is the intent behind this method of measurement.

Same for the AIP. If you build it very high and forward, you put a lot of extra weight in the car and the visibility of the driver might be compromised. Also hard to tell where the optimum is.


I'm expecting to see a few cars show up to FSG that look representative to 2013 Formula 1 cars. Sitting down and drawing a few boxes of where areo devices fit, there seems to be a direction to go to maximize the size of those boxes. Reading over the current aero and frame rules for FSG, if I were to design a car to that ruleset, I would honestly consider significant changes to the design from my last car. Some limitations that seemed arbitrary in the standard FSAE rules have been removed here or changed the reference point. I'm excited to see where this goes.

I am surprised to see that the bodywork rules are extremely nonrestrictive and hesitant to give any ideas or ask questions here as to the intention of that. Bemo, is there any concern for abuse of what is considered bodywork, a structural component, or an aero device, and how that will be legislated?

In my line of work, you know you've found the limit of "what is considered an aero device" when trying to roll through tech inspection and the inspectors say you're good to go...but at the same time laughing, calling other inspectors over, shaking their head, pointing fingers, and all taking pictures of your car. Yep, never going to get that design through again...

[Will M]

In my line of work, you know you've found the limit of "what is considered an aero device" when trying to roll through tech inspection and the inspectors say you're good to go...but at the same time laughing, calling other inspectors over, shaking their head, pointing fingers, and all taking pictures of your car. Yep, never going to get that design through again...


Whenever new FSAE rule sets were published I always enjoyed checking to see if they directly addressed something we had done.
Over the years we racked up several changes just for us :)

-William

[Bemo]

one advice/favor: Please make clear to the students who exactly is the body behind those rules and who the people can talk to (over a beer at the Mahle party for example) if they want to discuss something.
When I was an active member (and sadly the rules geek of Zurich), it was super frustrating to not be able to talk to the guys that made the rules. It was like a dark anonymous amorph cloud that could not be touched.
I know how much work people put into these things and I am certain that everyone re-writing those rules thought about stuff and can explain the decisions made.
Please give the students the chance to understand it, discuss it and make the rules better every year.

I'll talk with the others about this as I cannot tell if everyone involved is comfortable in making it public that he/she is involved. For myself I can say, I have no problem to let everyone know that I was involved in the rewriting of part T. To be more precise I rewrote the whole chassis part before it was corrected by native English speakers.
What I can tell is that the work was done by a group mainly consisting of FSG officials and some FSA officials.

Of course it is our goal to further improve the rules year by year. But to do so the more important thing is to converge the rules worldwide to avoid them to seperate more and more. There are a lot of ideas how to improve the rules but if we would do so, it would become more or less impossible to participate in competitions using the other rules. This should be definitely avoided.
Unfortunately it's hard to predict how this will continue in the near future as it is not really in our hands and we'll have to see how the other organisations will react.

[Dunk Mckay]

I second all of the positive comments above, I think these are great. A lot of UK C-teams already consider FSUK as a dress rehearsal due to the scoring bias. So not running aero at Silverstone in order to have a full sized aero package at FSG is a compromise many will be willing to make (not to mention the chassis design compromises to maximise aero size).

There is one change I'd like to mention specifically:

T2.15.1: The upper support member must be attached to the front bulkhead max. 50 mm lower
than the top-most surface of the front bulkhead, and attached to the front hoop not
lower than 50 mm below the upper side impact member. If the attachment point
of the upper member is higher than 100 mm above the upper side impact member,
node-to-node triangulated bracing is required to transfer load to the main hoop.

This is a rewording of FSAE rule T3.19.2, minus the notes in the FSAE rules stating:

NOTE: Each of the above members can be multiple or bent tubes provided the requirements of T3.5.5
are met.
Note: Examples of acceptable configurations of members can be found in Appendix T-4.(Appendix : https://www.fsaeonline.com/content/2016%20Driver_cell_support_structures_FBS_MRHS_exa mples_a.xls).

One of the most common basic frame designs I see equates to Fig.18 of said appendix. Without those notes, said frames would be illegal, right?

NOPE!


T2.3.5 (FSG): If a member of the primary structure (except for the roll hoops) is a bent tube or made
from multiple tubes an additional tube must support it. The attachment point must be at the
position along the tube(s) where it deviates farthest from a straight line connecting both ends.
The support tube must have the same dimension as the supported tube(s), terminate at a node
of the chassis and be angled no more than 30° from the plane of the supported tube(s).

This allows the upper support member to be broken up into multiple segments and braced, as per Fig 18.

This is a great example of where unnecessary "notes" for specific rules have been removed, without changing what is permitted. This reinforces the requirement for teams to properly read the rules and understand the implications of certain statements, rather than have it presented to them.

[John_Burford]

Bemo

It was a bad choice to create a new set of rules in secret and release them for FSG without any discussion with the International Rules Committee. The FSG rules have multiple errors, conflicts, and mistakes. More importantly the intent of many rules has been missed, resulting in an incompatibility for some designs to compete in FSAE/FSUK and FSG. FSAE is not going to adopt the FSG rules. Unfortunately, FSG's choice is going reduce the number teams who compete in FSAE/FSUK and FSG. Is that what you had in mind?

John Burford

[JulianH]

John,

that is a very rude statement.
I agree that it would have been better if FSG/FSA would have announced that they are planning a new rules set earlier, there I am with you.

But:
1) Who says they did not discuss it with the International Rules Committee (and for the matter of that: Do you even know who those magic black guys are?!)?
2) Please point out the errors, conflicts and mistakes. Knowing Bemo, I am 100% certain that he will straight them out as soon as possible and he is even up for discussion them in a serious manner with you. Please chip in and help and don't play a populist card that is not constructive!
3) Which "intent" is missed?
4) The FSAE Rules were by far not the "Gold standard". They were rubbish for some extent. Just because the "young and agile" FSG/FSA bunch wanted to improve THEIR competition (instead of the "International Rules Committee", they all build FSAE cars and know what is going on!) they should not be held accountable that the "Rules Committee" is so freakin' slow.
5) If the UK wants to run the FSAE Rules that is their choice. I am more than certain that all continental Europe events will adopt those rules. That means that all Non-UK European teams will run cars based on those rules. As Dunk says, some UK teams might even opt to run a "De-spec'ed" FSG-Rules cars (e.g. w/o Aero) in the UK to test the waters. UK will then be a nightmare of competition. At some point even the IMechE should be worried that they will fall behind (even more...).
6) I'm quite sure that the intent of the new Rules was NOT to divide the competition. It was a step-up of the FSG team to emancipate themselves from the shackles of the FSAE Rules. It was a good move. Let's see how it will play out.


Best
Julian

[Pete Marsh]

I would like to reiterate Z's point on the inclusion of the word "rack" in the steering rules, implicitly requiring you must have such a thing in your design in order to have a place to put the steering stops.
Worse still, there is no definition of what this "steering rack" might be.

I found many instances in the FSAE rules where it was clear the rule has been written with a certain solution in mind, even though it is not a required solution, just that it is popular or the traditional norm.
I believe this goes directly AGAINST the intent of the competition and substantially restricts design options where there was not reason or intent to do so, and efforts should be made to eliminate this happening.

At UWA we did not feel the need to follow the norm as much as most teams, and as such found numerous concept ideas and sub system solutions frustrated by rules design to fit, and written with the
assumption of, the traditional USA idea of a FSAE car. In many instances a particular solution is pretty much required to comply with the rules, yet is not stated as a requirement nor has an apparent safety or
enforcement implications that are obvious.

I suggest every effort be made to clearly understand where you are, and are not, intending to make a certain thing a requirement and where the intention is freedom of design, be careful to ensure ALL the rules allow the
intended freedom.

For example, there has never been any rule mandating what the driver input to the steering system must be, yet there are rules pertaining to the shape and location of a "steering wheel". So it follows your design must include
such a thing and all other solutions are not permitted. Was/is that the intention? Is there a better way that YOU have not thought of, but one of 1000's of students might?

The current strategy of editing and adding to the rule set to allow innovations, as and when they come along and are deemed OK for the masses, IMO contributes to their current size and complexity.

The issue becomes what do you really want to control, and how to write a rule to achieve that, and only that.

The issues are safety, performance restriction and balance, and rule enforcement.

As an example, my attempt at a rule for the steering system - (this rule intentionally prohibits articulated steer, skid steer etc as PRIMARY directional control, but does allow great freedom, for example a joystick control,
and also covers brake and drive vector control, (which the current rule set is silent on))



1.0 - The vehicle must be equipped with driver operable geometric steering of the front wheel pair as it's primary means of directional control. Additional steering of the rear wheels or any other system that may influence the
direction of the vehicle are permitted such that the driver can maintain full directional control of the vehicle in any failure mode of the secondary system or systems.

1.1 - All primary directional control components and mechanisms shall demonstrate effective control of the front wheel toe angles by the driver, have a safety factor of at least 4 with full
failure mode analysis of each component, and must include mechanical stops to limit travel within the system's functional range. Any system that deviates from the standard practice automotive steering wheel
with direct mechanical connection to the wheels, shall be required to demonstrate appropriate and intuitive control of the vehicle by an average person for autocross racing.

The team shall prepare and present a report at scrutineering, checked and approved by the faculty adviser, showing the vehicles compliance with 1.1

1.2 - Additional steering or directional control systems shall have a safety factor of at least 4 with full failure mode analysis of each component, and must include mechanical stops to limit travel within the system's
functional range, which must be such that rule 1.0 is respected.

The team shall prepare and present a report at scrutineering, checked and approved by the faculty adviser, showing the vehicles compliance with 1.2



Peter

[Dunk Mckay]

There's allowing design freedom, and then there's over complicating the rules to allow for design freedom that is unlikely to ever be used. If teams are spending all their time deciphering the rules (especially non-native English speakers), then they don't have time to come up with creative concepts anyway.

I think prescribing a specific solution is the right thing to do, IF, in the many years that this competition has been around has never (or almost never) been deviated from (i.e. steering wheel/rack), and it cuts out three or four rather long winded, overly complex paragraphs (sorry Pete, but tl:dr).

If this was all about design freedom, then things like 2-strokes and diesels would all be allowed, but there would be a lot more rules to control competitiveness and safety.

[Pete Marsh]

I did not mean to suggest or recommend extra freedom in the steering system or any other. I only offer it as an example, or attempt, to have short simple rule that covers the safety aspects but otherwise allows freedom.

The point I was trying to make was that UNINTENDED restriction would appear to be rife within the rules due to wording born from a pre conceived idea of what students will bring.
For what it is worth, not all cars have a steering rack, (UWA has won overall dynamics without one), it is NOT and has never been a requirement that you have one, yet there are several other rules that refer to it.

For example is it the intention that appropriate fasteners are NOT required because your steering is via Pitman arm instead of a rack? I think not, yet the current rules only mention a specific fasteners requirement for a steering rack, leaving you free to use cables ties to mount your steering box..

Please note I have no issue with something being made a requirement if it is deemed it should be so. My beef is when it is loosely implied via poor use of language that you 'should' have something, when if fact, there is no reason to.

Where something IS a requirement it should be clearly stated, and DEFINED.

For example-

1.0 - The vehicle must be equipped with driver operable steering wheel, in accordance with rule 1.3, providing geometric steering of the front wheel pair as it's primary means of directional control. Additional steering of the rear wheels or any other system that may influence the
direction of the vehicle are permitted such that the driver can maintain directional control of the vehicle in any failure mode of the secondary system or systems.

1.1 - All primary directional control components and mechanisms shall demonstrate effective control of the front wheel toe angles by the driver, have a safety factor of at least 4 with full
failure mode analysis of each component, and must include mechanical stops to limit travel within the system's functional range. All load bearing components must be rigid and manufactured from wrought or cast metal, and joined with mechanical fastening meeting all requirements for safety critical joints.

1.3 - The steering wheel must ........whatever , round ,removable, etc.


There you go, still way less words, and very safe, easy to police, with nothing too scary allowed.

Pete

[Z]

Bemo

It was a bad choice to create a new set of rules in secret and release them for FSG without any discussion with the International Rules Committee. The FSG rules have multiple errors, conflicts, and mistakes. More importantly the intent of many rules has been missed, resulting in an incompatibility for some designs to compete in FSAE/FSUK and FSG. FSAE is not going to adopt the FSG rules. Unfortunately, FSG's choice is going reduce the number teams who compete in FSAE/FSUK and FSG. Is that what you had in mind?

John Burford

John,

"It was a bad choice to create a new set of rules in secret..."???

Extreme HYPOCRISY!!!

The FSAE International Rules Committee is one of the most secretive, opaque, bodies on the planet. It was/is the IRC's complete lack of openess that forced FSG to go its own way. And saying that FSG should have discussed any changes with the IRC before implementing them is unwarranted arrogance. The IRC's recent form suggests that they are the last people who would provide useful feedback.

These new FSG Rules do more than your old FSAE Rules (eg. they cover Driverless Vehicles), and they do it with a lot less (ie. ~60 pages less). Getting "more from less" is always good engineering.

Either do better, or get out of the way.
~~~o0o~~~

Pete and Dunk, with regard to Steering Rules.

As I noted in earlier posts I am a big fan of "real-world" testing, as is embodied in the current Tilt-Table and Brake-Tests. The current Rules contain very little covering "CG-Height-to-Track-Width-Ratio" or "Brake-System-design", and there is certainly no requirement for students to provide pages of calculations to "prove" that their car will not fall over while cornering, or fail to slow down adequately before the corners.

Yet the above issues of falling-over or failing-to-slow are (almost) never a problem at competitions. This is because a few minutes of simple real-world tests "prove" those performance goals as well as they could possibly be proven. (In fact, I find Brake-Test to be one of the highlights of the show. Ahh, the broken wishbones! :) The non-locking of wheels because of a failure to properly bleed an otherwise good brake-system, etc...)

So, how to reliably test a Steering-System?

I suggest a similar test to those I mentioned in an earlier post, which are real-world versions of the AF rules. So, while the structural integrity of the frame is tested by pulling and pushing it in various directions, all four wheels could also be tested for their toe-stiffness/strength.

I have thought about how to do this in some detail, but no time to spell it all out here. In short, with the car "tied down" to a largish base-frame, perhaps while the Roll-Hoops++ are also being tested, a lateral pushing load (30 - 100 kg?) is applied to either the 3-o'clock or 9-o'clock position on the sidewall of the tyre. Target is NO mechanical failure, and LESS THAN some given deflection of wheel toe-angle.

For example, both front-wheels can be squeezed together at their fronts (= both toe-in), or spread apart (= toe-out), while deflections are measured. Then the steering-hand-wheel can be prevented from turning while the fronts of both front-wheels are pushed to left, then similar to right. This last test should be done with the front-wheels in straight-ahead position, and then also at full-lock, left and right. These "full-lock" tests directly test the steering stops, and "prove" whether the wheels really are prevented from going over-centre.

Similar tests also done at rear-wheels, whether or not rear-wheel-steer is used.

Two advantages of doing it this way.

1. The Rule Book can be much shorter. Only need similar rules to those on Tilt-Table/Brake-Test, namely a description of the test as it is perfomed at comp. So students spend less time reading abstruse clauses and scratching heads.

2. By having some very objective targets of toe-stiffness spelled out in the Rules, some of the Teams might actually start designing to these targets. And, in fact (rather than just in CAD), some of the cars may actually be measured for these numbers when built. I doubt even 10% of Teams actually measure these important numbers nowadays. Maybe <1%. :(

This real-world testing can only lead to better cars, and hence better young engineers!

Z

[Dunk Mckay]

Tire in ~2 inch deep channels? With wheelbase and track easily adjusted to suit the car. Each corner has it's own channel that pivots around centre point aligned with "kingpin" axle.
Just a few pieces of formed/welded steel and a couple of threaded rods and you're away.

[Bemo]

Bemo

It was a bad choice to create a new set of rules in secret and release them for FSG without any discussion with the International Rules Committee. The FSG rules have multiple errors, conflicts, and mistakes. More importantly the intent of many rules has been missed, resulting in an incompatibility for some designs to compete in FSAE/FSUK and FSG. FSAE is not going to adopt the FSG rules. Unfortunately, FSG's choice is going reduce the number teams who compete in FSAE/FSUK and FSG. Is that what you had in mind?

John Burford

First of all, I'm not the one who is making any decisions. I give my opinions about stuff and I'm contributing to the content of those new rules.

If there are errors or inconsistencies you are welcome to point them out as a feedback. But you should be very aware that the FSAE rules are much worse in every aspect. I'll give you one example which is in the rules for years and has been pointed out to the IRC multiple times but they just did not bother to do anything about it:

A3.9
Headings
The article, section and paragraph headings in these rules are provided only to facilitate reading: they do not affect the paragraph contents.

T9.3
Location Rear Mounted Devices:
T9.3.1
In plan view, no part of any aerodynamic device, wing, undertray or splitter must be:
a. Further rearward than 250 mm (9.8 inches) rearward of the rear of the rear tires
b. Further forward than a vertical plane through the rearmost portion of the front face of the driver head restraint support, excluding any padding, set (if adjustable) in its fully rearward position (excluding undertrays).
c. Wider than the inside of the rear tires, measured at the height of the hub centerline.

Those two rules in combination actually prohibit ANY aerodynamic device forward of the head restraint. The FSAE rules are full of examples like that. That's one of the reasons why there was the feeling that it is necessary to start it completely new from scratch.

[mech5496]

Bemo,

I think we all agree that the new FSE rules are a step in the right direction, however there's still room for improvement. I really like it when I see structured, sound criticism but no whining. My only "issue" was the fact that overseas teams would have to design around two very different rulesets. Now this has been mostly resolved in the latest revision, yet it caused some frustration from being so drastically different it can be considered a new ruleset rather a revision.

Hope to see more from FSG/FSE in the future, as well as from FSAE working with you to harmonize everything.

[Dunk Mckay]

T2.9.4 In side view any portion lower than the upper attachment point to the side impact structure must be inclined either forward or not more than 10° rearward.
Is a re-wording of:

T3.11.6 In the side view of the vehicle, the portion of the Main Roll Hoop that lies below the upper side
impact member attachment point may be inclined at any angle to the vertical in the forward direction
but, it must be inclined rearward no more than ten degrees (10°) of the vertical.

However, it is still ambiguous. Inclined forward FROM WHERE?!
Inclined rearward, as used for the upper portion of the main hoop, suggests tilting backwards about the lowest attachment point.
But if you talk about inclined without specifying where this inclination "starts" you could tart from the top of the tube, or the bottom. In which case your angle is measured in opposite directions!!

Could do with clearing this up.

[tromoly]

I found this in the 1986 rulebook, to me it's neat and something worth revisiting.


The car must be equipped with a muffler in the exhaust system to reduce the noise to an acceptable level. The noise level will be measured with a sound level meter as the car accelerates at full power along a straight line for a distance of 100 feet or more. The measurement will be made at the mid point of the run at a distance of 20 feet from the car at 3 feet above the ground. The sound level must not exceed 105 dB on the A weighting band at any time during the test.

[eduardocclc]

I found this in the 1986 rulebook, to me it's neat and something worth revisiting.

Currently the brake test happens after the noise test. It could be dangerous to run full power in a straight without testing the brakes first.

[tromoly]

Why not do both at the same time? Also per the 1986 rulebook under "Judging of the Inspection" in "Competition Events":


Upon completion of the static inspection, the car must at some time report to the muffler and brake test area. The car will be accelerated at maximum power and the sound level will be measured by the specifications given in the rules. At the end of the sound test, the driver must demonstrate the car has adequate brakes.

In general reading old rulebooks is quite enjoyable, check out the 1986 rulebook at http://www.fsaeonline.com/content/1986%20FSAE%20rules.pdf, and if you desire to read a bunch of other old rulebooks several are available at http://www.fsaeonline.com/page.aspx?pageid=add93a81-8bed-4679-9fef-1aa42ba38b95.