Revision to rules T3.5.5, T3.20.2.a, T3.34.4, IC1.12.5, and IC1.12.9

[John_Burford]

Updated rules available at fsaeonline.

Revised rule:
T3.5.5 If a bent tube(or member consisting of multiple tubes that are not in a line) is used anywhere in the primary structure, other than the front and main roll hoops, an additional tube must be attached to support it. The attachment point must be the position along the tube where it deviates farthest from a straight line connecting both ends. The support tube must have the same diameter and thickness as the bent tube, terminate at a node of the chassis, and be angled no more than 45 degrees from the plane of the bent tube. Braces attached to the upper side impact member are not required to meet the 45 degree from the plane of the bent tube requirement.

The note: regarding “not normal” is to be removed.


Revised rule:
T3.20.2.a. The upper support member must be attached within 50mm (2”) of the top surface of the Front Bulkhead, and attach to the Front Roll Hoop within a zone extending 100mm (4”) above and 50mm (2”) below the Upper Side Impact member. If the upper support member is further than 100mm (4”) above the Upper Side Impact member then properly triangulated bracing is required to transfer load to the attachment of the Upper Side Impact member to the Front Roll Hoop.

Accidentally deleted rule:
T3.34.4 The perimeter shear strength of the monocoque laminate should be at least 7.5 kN (1700 pounds) for a section with a diameter of 25 mm (1 inch). This must be proven by physical test completed as per T3.31.2 and the results included in the SES.


IC1.12.5 and 9:
"APPS" replaced with "TPS"

[Z]

John,

STUPID, STUPID, STUPID!!!

The last revision of the Rules was a complete cock-up, and now you are trying to fix it by adding even more STUPIDITY!

SACK EVERYONE on the Rules Committe, find some competent people, and tell them to listen to the good sense being given on Kevin's "Rules Reduction Recommendations" thread.
~o0o~


Revised rule:
T3.5.5 If a bent tube(or member consisting of multiple tubes that are not in a line) is used anywhere in the primary structure, other than the front and main roll hoops, an additional tube must be attached to support it. The attachment point must be the position along the tube where it deviates farthest from a straight line connecting both ends. The support tube must have the same diameter and thickness as the bent tube, terminate at a node of the chassis, and be angled no more than 45 degrees from the plane of the bent tube. Braces attached to the upper side impact member are not required to meet the 45 degree from the plane of the bent tube requirement.

The note: regarding “not normal” is to be removed.

Specifically:

What is a "bent tube"?

Do you realise that NO tube ever made is perfectly "straight"?

So where do you make the distinction?

Is a 1 millimetre bow over 1 metre "straight enough" or "too bent"?

If the tube in above question must be "supported" at its mid-point, then do the resulting two tubes, that are now bowed by ~0.25 mm over 0.5 metre, also have to be "supported" at THEIR mid-points?

Where does the madness end?

And why was that "not normal" note in there anyway!?
~o0o~

The extra sentence in T3.5.5 (emboldened above), that makes an already STUPID RULE even STUPIDER, really confirms the RCs STUPIDITY.

Firstly, there is the ambiguity of whether the "braces" themselves can now be "bent tubes", or whether these "braces", in their roles as "support tubes", no longer have to be "no more than 45 degrees from...".

But, clearly, the RC has been made aware of cars with WELL DESIGNED Side-Impact-Structures that would be illegal according to their STUPID new Rule T3.5.5. So they have added YET MORE STUPID WORDS in an attempt to exclude the SIS (and only the SIS!) from the other STUPIDITY.

But what about the rest of the car?

It should be obvious that if the SIS can be both well designed, and yet not comply with your STUPID Rule, then the same can apply to any other part of the car!

(For students' eyes only (I doubt the RC would understand this): Consider an X-shaped brace inside a rectangular "hole" in a frame. Say, over the footbox, or over the engine bay. Importantly, the X is NOT planar, and it looks like the sloping edges of a low, four-sided pyramid. This sort of structure is VERY GOOD at bracing rectangular openings in frames. (Sometimes it is bolted on to the frame, to allow, say, removal of engines). This sort of structure is also, from the wording of current Rule T3.5.5, ILLEGAL!!!!!)
~o0o~

John, I repeat, SACK EVERYONE on the current Rules Committe, find some competent people, and tell them to listen to the good sense being given on Kevin's "Rules Reduction Recommendations" thread.

Z

[John_Burford]

Z

I hope you monitor your bleed pressure. I'm afraid you might pop a bleed vessel.

John Burford

[Kevin Hayward]

John,

Thank you for posting this to the forums. I know a lot of students (especially non-US), would check the forums more often than fsaeonline.

Kev

[apalrd]

John,

Is this the 'last round' of rule proposals?

There are still a lot of clarifications to be made to the ETC rules, among other things (e.g. regarding throttle vs torque, the rules are very inconsistent on torque-based vs throttle-based safety requirements).

[Claude Rouelle]

Z,

Again an unnecessarily nonconstructive reaction from you.

[Claude Rouelle]

Z,

There are guys who are giving their time for FSAE / FS. Free of charge. They could not be perfect in what they do, nobody is, but they deserve some respect. You share some excellent experience and perspective in this forum but you loose all credibility with the language you use.

[Claude Rouelle]

Z, you are the kind of guy who is not happy.....unless he is not happy

[Mumpitz]

You can defend the volunteers as people who deserve some respect, but is there any defense for the state of the document they've created.
There has been ample feedback and suggestions that have been ignored, an anonymous closed door.

What about the other volunteers in this event? the tech inspectors that have to make the judgement calls based on this set of rules. As someone who is in a great position to volunteer as a tech inspector I don't know if I'd want to given the rules I'd be expected to enforce.

Claude, there is no question that you care greatly about the success of this competition and its participants, so what do you suggest that the participants do to help it improve? Is it a lost cause? Do you think the rules in their current state help or hurt the future of Formula SAE/Student?

[John_Burford]

Mumpitz

Absolutely you should volunteer. You'll find it rewarding, and getting a prospective from the other side is the first step towards contributing to make the competition better.

[Z]

Claude, Claude, Claude,

"nonconstructive", huh?

Imagine that you are walking out on a runway to board a Jumbo Jet to another FSAE comp. As you get near the plane you look up and notice cracks in the wings. Also, one of the engines is hanging at an odd angle, probably because that big shiny bolt that you see on the ground has fallen out of the engine mounts. Furthermore, you notice the Captain and crew walking towards the cockpit, and they all seem to be falling-over-drunk!

You hear the other passengers mumbling "Oh, it doesn't look right..., something's wrong..., somebody should do something...".

So, what do YOU do, Claude?

Do you tell the other passengers that they must STOP BEING DISRESPECTFUL of the Crew, and of Air-FSAE, and that they should just be quiet, get on the plane, sit in their seats, and say nothing more?

Do you then discretely walk back to the terminal, ring your stockbroker and tell him to sell your shares in Air-FSAE, and then catch another plane?
~o0o~

If above questions are too hypothetical, then can you please explain why you think that Rule T3.5.5, which, if taken literally, would make the majority of all racecar spaceframes ever built ILLEGAL, is such a GOOD Rule, unwarranting of any criticism???

Z

[jd74914]

Thank you for posting the updates John! We were just writing up a rules committee question for those very same line items. I hope to see a few more items clarified soon.

Not to get further off topic, but I once worked with a guy whose personality was similar to Z's (at least on the internet)-quite intelligent and full of knowledge, but equally full of arrogance and contempt for what seemed to be everyone around him. I'm really good at compartmentalizing so learned may good things technically from this individual [while ignoring his overly frequent rants], but also noticed how few other people listened to him because to them the nuggets of good information were not always worth the derision. After a company change he subsequently was laid off. The moral of the story for me was that if you actually want people to listen to you, you need to treat them with some form of respect and common courtesy.

Examples of calling out an egregious safety problem with human life at sake are much different than problems affecting a competition.

I do wish the rules committee was more transparent and provided some level of justification for rules like these ones which really change the fundamental design of many frames without any indication of change before the rules release. That said, I do understand how much effort it takes to manage a huge document with tons of people constantly scrubbing it. Anyways, that's all from me on this topic.

[Mbirt]

You can defend the volunteers as people who deserve some respect, but is there any defense for the state of the document they've created.
There has been ample feedback and suggestions that have been ignored, an anonymous closed door.

What about the other volunteers in this event? the tech inspectors that have to make the judgement calls based on this set of rules. As someone who is in a great position to volunteer as a tech inspector I don't know if I'd want to given the rules I'd be expected to enforce.

Claude, there is no question that you care greatly about the success of this competition and its participants, so what do you suggest that the participants do to help it improve? Is it a lost cause? Do you think the rules in their current state help or hurt the future of Formula SAE/Student?
I'm with Mumpitz. Some of the loudest voices questioning the rules set have legitimate industry experience that might fill in experience gaps in the rules committee.

John B., is there a need for rules committee experience concerning modern ICE boosting, controls, and calibration? Some of us recent grads are potential competition volunteers but may not yet fit the qualifications to be on the rules committee. Is there any way that those with the proper professional experience could advise the rules committee where it might lack depth to help prevent the situation which Mumpitz describes above?

http://d13s5ta1qg2cax.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/help-pic.jpg

[apalrd]

Some of the loudest voices questioning the rules set have legitimate industry experience that might fill in experience gaps in the rules committee.

Many of the teams have huge experience in how vehicles are actually built, things they actually consider, how they actually implement the requirements of the rules, it would probably be good to ask them.

In addition, I have spent quite a while working in both torque security (ETC reliability) and torque controls, and I can say very seriously that the ETC safety rules imposed by the RC are nothing like what the industry does in any way. The industry is very conscious of safely honoring the drivers request and providing a safe way to control torque in any single failure, and a safe powerdown if that is not possible, not blindly inhibiting anything that an MTC engine (or a good driver) wouldn't do.

It would be nice for the RC to talk to their customers (the teams) about proposed changes.