2016 Formula Student UK (FSUK) [Archive]

JulianH

07-19-2016, 04:33 PM

I don't buy into the argument stating that because it wasn't highlighted in pre-scrutineering that they can't fault you in post. The responsibility for ensuring that the car is legal under all possible conditions lies with the team and the team alone. Just as engine bores are not checked in pre-scrutineering because it is not feasible, it is also not feasible to take detailed measurements of the cars in order to provide guarantees to teams that they are completely legal. The focus should be on safety.

Thermal expansion and other forms of variation are always a possibility. And teams must realise that scrutineers are not going to be using measurement arms, or giant verniers to check dimensions, and cannot demand they do so. A tape measure was always going to be the most likely candidate, and the parts should have been dimensioned and toleranced accordingly, to insure no one would have grounds to argue their car was not legal.

I don't want to be critical of the teams involved, I do not believe they deserved to be disqualified, although some sort of minor penalty would have been in order. At the end of the day, there is no good engineering reason to push the limits of the rules so tightly, in FSAE. Any good simulation will tell you the points difference gained by an additional 3-4mm on the width of the wing is insignificant compared to the points gaps seen at competition, as such, taking the risk of failing scrutineering (pre or post) is a poor decision.

Dunk,

I think you are comparing apples with oranges here.
"Cheating" on your engine bores is something different then building a wing which is close to the limit of the rules, that gets a pass in Scrutineering and then is deemed illegal afterwards.
The difference is "intention". We always discuss intention of the rules. If you use a 650cc engine, your intention is to cheat. If you build a wing close to the edge, get it "passed", then your intention is not to cheat.
If you then get a DQ for this, I think this is total unfair and should not exist.

I agree that teams should be responsible for making cars legal at any time. But with that statement, we can just like leave scruti at all, and just re-scrutineer all cars after endurance and DQ all of them.
I would challenge, that a picky Scrutineer with unlimited time can deem ALL cars illegal after finishing endurance.
That is not the spirit, sorry.

I even think that they should not get a penalty.
If I bring 2 sets of wings to the event, one for scruti, one for the track and the second one is illegal. Then I get a penalty.

We cannot give penalties for parts that are not changed. And CFRP wings do not grow in size measurable even if it is warm.

I'm not sure if my memory is correct, but judging back from the days in 2009-10 the rescrutineering turned from "ok let's check 1-2 things" into "alright let's find something they could have forgotten to ruin their work".
Even checking a safety concern like BOT AFTER the race is kind of stupid but I can get around that.

Let's just seal all parts that could give you a performance gain or would be used to cheat the rules and then keep the re-scruti to the minimum (like checking highest cell temperatures or noise). And then focus on the rest.

07-19-2016, 10:11 PM

Kevin or ECU Team,

Bummer! I was hoping you could show all those wannabe E-Teams just how fast C-cars can accelerate... :) Your past Accel times, plus a decent Skid-Pad time, would have put you in top three for sure. What happened?
~~~o0o~~~

Does anyone have link to an "executive overview" of this comp?
Photos of the cars?
Gossip of why Teams DNF'd or DQ'd (other than above cryptic posts)?

Is this Forum now obsolete technology for obtaining news?

Z

BeunMan

07-20-2016, 02:12 AM

As I can see ECU did high 65s a lap at endurance. Not even close. Or am looking at the wrong team (14xx s endurance)?

Most chat is on watsapp these days. Ir the fsuk live video stream chat

Dunk Mckay

07-20-2016, 04:04 AM

If the focus should be on safety - and I agree it should - then the point where it starts to go wrong is in the rulebook. Limiting the dimensions of aero devices can have safety reasons, but limiting them to another design parameter (width of front tires) does not. So it is my opinion that the rule committee should reconsider whether this is really the way they want FSAE to go.
Totally agree.

Having said that, I completely agree with the point made above that it is the team's responsibility to have a rule-compliant car at all times during the event. But I do not agree that a lighter penalty should have been given. A team is found to have participated in a dynamic event with a non-compliant car, so the penalty is that you lose your tech sticker and are disqualified from that event, simple as that. Handing out alternative penalties invented on the spot would be a very tricky decision and would set a precedent which might be hard to uphold in the future. I mean, who should judge how large the gained advantage is and what penalty is appropriate? This would pave the way towards more arbitrary decisions and therefore more controversy.
I just meant that if a lighter penalty were available in the specific event rules, it should have been used, as disqualification, from a 'moral' standpoint, was not deserved.

I try to avoid criticism without offering an alternative, so how about this:

If an item is found to be outside the rules that:
- has a DIRECT effect on safety, the car should be disqualified. (direct being the keyword, as anything that makes the car go faster could be considered to make it less safe).
- does not have a direct effect on safety, and is within a 3% margin of error, then a 10% time penalty should be applied.
- does not have a direct effect on safety, and is outside a 3% margin of error, or is a binary rule and cannot be assigned an error value, then a 50% time penalty should be applied.

It speaks for itself that a big decision (disqualifying a number of teams) needs to be backed by sound evidence and therefore an accurate measuring method is essential. This is the organiser's responsibility and I'm sure they will be listening to the teams' feedback.
I disagree with it being the organisers responsibility to measure to a higher degree of accuracy, beyond providing second and third measuring tapes/rulers on request.
These events are run by volunteers and can be a little disorganised. Adding the challenge of acquiring high accuracy measurement measurement equipment, along with people qualified to use them properly, is too much to ask. I work for one of the event's main sponsors and have access to a measurement arm, and I don't think I could recommend using it in such an uncontrolled environment.

Thinking about that, my suggestion for a 3% margin of error is not ideal. The same issue would apply as to where that 3% margin actually lies without accurate measurement. It would be simpler to have a rule stating that high accuracy measurement cannot be guaranteed, and so teams should ensure a margin of error is allowed for in their designs. Maybe have some suggestions of measurement tolerances at different scales/measurement types. I would have thought most experienced teams already understood this, I guess I was wrong.

I think you are comparing apples with oranges here.
"Cheating" on your engine bores is something different then building a wing which is close to the limit of the rules, that gets a pass in Scrutineering and then is deemed illegal afterwards.
The difference is "intention". We always discuss intention of the rules. If you use a 650cc engine, your intention is to cheat. If you build a wing close to the edge, get it "passed", then your intention is not to cheat.
If you then get a DQ for this, I think this is total unfair and should not exist.

I wasn't talking about intentionally cheating. I was more thinking of a team that might have bored out their 599cc engine to what they measured to be 610cc. But in post-scrutineering it is measured (accurately) at 611, oops. This would have been picked up in pre-scrute if they did the check, but it's not feasible.
Another example is a team that have checked their restrictor to 19.999mm, in pre-scrutineering the weather is average and it's checked and approved by a single scrutineer. After the event the car is hot and the restrictor no longer passes with all the gauges available. When measured accurately later by the team comes out at 20.1 and the team feel like idiots for not thinking about thermal expansion, and that the rules state that any car can be re-scrutineered at any time.
It's the teams fault for not thinking about thermal expansion, not the scrutineer's fault for giving them a pass when it was cold.
Back that up with the obvious constraints on what equipment they can feasibly use to get 100+ cars scrutineered in the time available, and you cannot use pre-scrutineering as a check for having a legal car.

Let's just seal all parts that could give you a performance gain or would be used to cheat the rules and then keep the re-scruti to the minimum (like checking highest cell temperatures or noise). And then focus on the rest.
Even if they could measure more accurately in pre-scrute without any time penalty. You're suggesting they somehow "seal" everything they have checked. So now they have to sign and sticker up every single tube on the car, every single part that has a dimension rule. That doesn't work either. Just turn up to scrutineering with your wheels shimmed out to the max, then remove the extra shims in the event. You don't have to worry about you wing being checked again, as it's got a sticker on it saying it's fine, but really it's 20mm too wide!

Luniz

07-20-2016, 04:31 AM

...

Even if they could measure more accurately in pre-scrute without any time penalty. You're suggesting they somehow "seal" everything they have checked. So now they have to sign and sticker up every single tube on the car, every single part that has a dimension rule. That doesn't work either. Just turn up to scrutineering with your wheels shimmed out to the max, then remove the extra shims in the event. You don't have to worry about you wing being checked again, as it's got a sticker on it saying it's fine, but really it's 20mm too wide!

Simple solution: Don't have dimensions relative to moveable/changeable components in the rules. Have a template that is essentially a plywood cutout. If you can fit your wing through it, ok, if not, get the trimming tools out.

Bemo

07-20-2016, 05:38 AM

Exactly as long as the measurements given in the rules are relative to the tires and the ground, this will stay very difficult. You can mark the wing as much as you want, it won't change anything about this issue as with the current rules set, you don't have to change anything about the wing itself to make it illegal. Simple suspension adjustments can make it illegal.

Regarding the argument that if you rescrutineer every car like this, you could dq everyone I can just say, not true. I'm working as a scrutineer for a couple of years now and can tell there are teams which are very competitive and never have any issues in re-inspection. Make that wing 3mm narrower and you won't ever run into issues like that. And if anyone tells me now anything about performance losses, I can just laugh.

If you build everything to the absolute edge with no room for tolerance you play a risky game and sometimes it will turn out for the bad.

And once more. I don't want to say that things were handled correctly at this years FS UK. I haven't been there. But it bothers me that quite a lot of participants seem to have the opinion that more or less any dq after endurance is the fault of the organisers/scrutineers. For a dq it does not matter if something is a safety issue or not. It matters if something is rules compliant or not. I wouldn't have a problem to give penalties instead of a dq, but this needs to be implemented in the rules. At the moment there is no real posibility to do so. The rules give only the option to dq or not to dq. As in quite a lot of cases you can argue about if rules changes are necessary, but that doesn't change anything for this moment. At the moment these are the rules which count.

07-20-2016, 06:20 AM

I thought it would good to share the statement of the Delft team regarding the situation. This has been shared on various social media as well.

Regards,
Miki Hegedus
Faculty Advisor Formula Student Team Delft

------------
First of all, congratulations to Rennteam Uni Stuttgart e.V. for winning FSUK. They've built an amazing car and worked hard for the trophy. We have the utmost respect for their team.
We'd like to give an update on what happened after our run on the endurance track Sunday afternoon.

After good runs on acceleration and skidpad and the fastest lap of the day on the autocross track on Saturday, we were very happy to finish the endurance in a competitive time. On the track it was very close with Stuttgart’s combustion car, as well as with Running Snail Racing Team’s impressive car. Our projections suggested we were on course to winning the competition overall.
Some time after the endurance race, we received word that we had not passed the post-endurance rescrutineering. Our front wing was deemed too wide by 1mm and 2mm on either side of the car. As a result we were disqualified from the endurance and the efficiency event, meaning we would end up at 17th place overall.
Shortly before the award ceremony it was confirmed that our official protest concerning the disqualification had been denied.

The front wing had been measured during technical scrutineering on Thursday and was marked as rules compliant. On Friday we even went back to technical scrutineering to re-check all aero exclusion zones, aero radii and endplate widths because we were warned we would be checked at Parc Fermé and we did not want to take any risks. We were assured by the scrutineer that everything was fine. No changes were made to the front wing or the mechanical setup after initial scrutineering.
We were not present at the award ceremony, except at the start to applaud the volunteers. We were devastated by the very recent decision and disappointment got the better of us. Everyone reading this knows how much effort and passion goes into building one of these cars. Being this close, feeling you did everything right and then suddenly having your results taken away was a lot to deal with after an exhausting week and year.
It certainly was not our intention to disrespect the volunteers, organizers and participating teams at FSUK.

We would like to thank everyone involved for making this a great event. We enjoyed competing against the best FS teams at FSUK and are looking forward to seeing you in Germany!
-------------

Ahmad Rezq

07-20-2016, 06:26 AM

Z,
We were on the track for the first time since the team started in 2010.
Unfortunately we were very slow because we don't have good drivers to get the max from the car.
I'am happy with that, maybe next years we can perform better.

https://www.facebook.com/curt.fs/photos/a.251963638220791.62173.106620492755107/1076389009111579/?type=3&theater

------------------
We were pushing the car very hard into that.

- at the first day we had some problems with harness due to shipping we've managed to fix them 20 mins before the scrutineering.
- we needed to replace the wheels' nuts to pass the safety.
- After passing the tilt, we started to run the engine at the engine testing area. suddenly the torque limiter in the starting mechanism of the engine failed.
- we needed to push the car back to the pit trying to contact with any KTM dealer to provide the part.
- the Faculty advisor of Sunderland team helped us with that, he also provided the tools and worked on our engine.
- we've traveled almost to Scotland trying to buy the new torque limiter.
- day after the car was running with new part and we were able to pass the noise.
- in the braking test we discovered a problem with the clutch due to a problem in the engine assembly while replacing the new torque limiter. we need the clutch to free the rear wheels from the engine torque to easily lock them.
- we've took the decision to drive the car in the test put the gears in neutral just before braking and fortunately we were able to lock the four wheels and pass.
- during the sprint the car understeered and hit the wall, we had to replace two rod ends and steering link to get back to the track.
- before the endurance we decided to run the engine to check the cooling system, unfortunately the radiator fans cut the radiator fins and we had to fix the radiator.
- finally we were on the track running the car for the endurance event.
- we didn't manage to finish the endurance, the braking pedal became spongy, the pedal travel increased until it hit the brake over-travel switch and stop the engine.

JasperC

07-20-2016, 07:42 AM

I disagree with it being the organisers responsibility to measure to a higher degree of accuracy, beyond providing second and third measuring tapes/rulers on request.
These events are run by volunteers and can be a little disorganised. Adding the challenge of acquiring high accuracy measurement measurement equipment, along with people qualified to use them properly, is too much to ask. I work for one of the event's main sponsors and have access to a measurement arm, and I don't think I could recommend using it in such an uncontrolled environment.

One is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, no? If you're going to disqualify a team from the endurance, you must have a very high confidence. Being 95% sure is not even enough. If for whatever reason the organisation cannot say with such high confidence that a dimension limit is exceeded, than they have no base for disqualifying a team. If the front wing is too wide by 25mm, then a measuring tape will probably suffice. When talking about margins of 2mm, I'm not so sure. Either you find a way to improve your confidence or you accept that you can't, but then you must let the team pass. It's not as if any team would win the competition thanks to an alleged excess of 2mm on a wing.

Again, I was not even at the competition, so this is a general remark. For all I know, the measurement was fine in this particular case.

Kevin Hayward

07-20-2016, 08:46 AM

Z,

Unfortunately the team lost an exhaust valve during the braking test on Friday evening. The team proceeded to rebuild the engine (6pm till 11pm). Unfortunately the guys made a small error in the process (discovered in the brake test area) and it needed to come out again at 9am the next morning. We were stoked to get it done before Autocross and be able to post a time, and then go on to complete endurance.

Our first driver was quite inexperienced and hit quite a few cones, with pretty average lap times. Our second was looking good to go under 60s lap times at the very end, before Oxford Brookes unfortunately caught fire in front of him causing a red flag and another restart. This was well short of the pace of the best teams, who were frankly incredible. Our team will keep pushing, but we have a definite deficit in both vehicle and driver performance.

We would have been pretty close to 3rd place had we competed in Accel and Skidpan, with the electric cars doing times we had expected with their 60kW limit. However that would have only been possible with the DQ's. In the end we were overjoyed to finish where we did, and salvage the competition.

As a result of our issues on Friday/Saturday I wasn't in a great place to observe much of the competition, instead I hung in the wings waiting to see if the team needed to exercise the Uni credit card.

...

With regard to the DQs the teams not involved were kept in the dark about what was happening, and why the DQs were given out. There has been no statement from the scrutineers / judges that I am aware of. I hope a statement will be forthcoming.

I will note that I have seen some revisionist history regarding reactions to the DQs being spread on the net (forums / reddit). I can assure you that teams cheered their own victories, and were not silent in solidarity with DQ'd teams. Delft did appear at the awards ceremony after it had started, and were noted in their entrance and exit. I think if their intention was to applaud the volunteers, then it was misread by many in the hall. I believe many interpreted their entering and leaving on mass as a negative statement on their behalf. As a result may people booed when they were not present to accept the awards that they did win. I feel that they should be cut some slack as they had just been delivered some devastating news.

The DQ's will definitely be the talking point of the competition. Other teams would have almost certainly failed tech inspection after the competition, including a few notably noisy petrol cars if they had to try and re-pass noise.

I respect the scrutineers right to perform post-endurance scrutineering checks, and feel it is the only decent method of pushing rules compliance. It is no secret to anyone involved in this competition that the cars often change between tech/noise/brake and the running of the event. Parts are exchanged and modified, and often teams attempt to browbeat/sweet talk initial scrutineers into passing checks that have not been met. I have done it myself as a student. If we allow this without punishment we are encouraging a generation of engineers to accept that it is okay to do things like cheat to pass emissions tests. As a student or competitor it is often hard to keep in mind that the organisers are trying to prepare us for an industry where the rules need to be followed or there can be severe circumstances. If 1-2mm wider either side is not enough for a competitive advantage then why not be 1-2mm narrower either side. Is it better engineering practice to respect a hard boundary, or treat it as flexible and rely on the better judgement of the scrutineers. I do not mean to be callous in my remarks to those that were affected. I am aware that we may not have passed the exact same tests.

What is missed by some is that there were a number of teams exposed to post-endurance scrutineering checks that managed to pass them. For example the University of Hertfordshire was required to disassemble a decent proportion of their car to check the fuel system and capacity following what was quite reasonable fuel usage. Other teams were checked for Aero compliance at the same level and managed to pass.

In general I find that the scrutineering is becoming more stringent, and I think that the teams pushing the boundaries are partly responsible for that trend. As their professionalism and vehicle quality improve it is becoming much more reasonable to expect teams to meet the rules requirements.

...

On another less controversial point it is amazing how large the gap is between a small group of teams and the rest. During the weekend I managed to catch up with an old colleague of mine from the early successful UWA years. We both noted how far some teams had come, and how the competition had changed. It was particularly apparent to him, having not been involved in the FSAE/Student community since he left. There are a handful of teams that are operating at the level of professional motorsport teams. Budgets are at or above what would be expected from professional teams, with some universities having teams working full time on the project for the season (i.e. not completing other units at the same time). Build quality is getting very high with professional suppliers providing manufacture of molds and components we used to expect the teams to do themselves. The students are dedicated and very bright, and the top drivers are incredibly well trained. There are enough of these teams now that it is almost certain that at least one will finish and win. Unless there is a big change, no UK, US (excepting GFR), Oz, Japanese (and others) can be expected to win a major European event. These teams have worked hard, gathered significant industry support, and produce innovative and well detailed designs.

I agree with Z that the current top level concepts do not represent what is possible in Formula Student. However the professionalism, resources, and driving ability are more than enough to overcome any advantage an upcoming team might produce through a better concept. If a better concept came about the top teams would be more than capable of replicating and improving the ideas within one build cycle.

To those teams that want to be at the top (that currently aren't) I suggest that you start looking at how your team is run, change your relationship between the University and course structure, look to increase your resources significantly, and buckle in for the required years of continuous improvement. Otherwise it will be empty dreams and wishes.

Kev

Dunk Mckay

07-20-2016, 08:55 AM

One is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, no? If you're going to disqualify a team from the endurance, you must have a very high confidence. Being 95% sure is not even enough. If for whatever reason the organisation cannot say with such high confidence that a dimension limit is exceeded, than they have no base for disqualifying a team. If the front wing is too wide by 25mm, then a measuring tape will probably suffice. When talking about margins of 2mm, I'm not so sure. Either you find a way to improve your confidence or you accept that you can't, but then you must let the team pass. It's not as if any team would win the competition thanks to an alleged excess of 2mm on a wing.

Innocent until proven guilty? With anything relating to safety that means assuming a car is safe until proven unsafe. Sounds faulty to me.

Kevin Hayward

07-20-2016, 09:20 AM

Jasper,

For the record tape measures are more than accurate enough to measure 1-2mm differences over the lengths in question. Go/No Go templates might be a better option, depending on how accurately they can be made.

I would have assumed the following:
- Multiple measurements were made
- The person taking measurements was capable of using the measuring equipment, and multiple measurements ended up with the same reading
- The readings on the tape measure were greater than difference between marks (i.e. tape measures are more than accurate enough to measure to the closest millimetre)
- The team saw the readings being taken

...

On the basis of this opposition of the ruling would be based on one of three possible reasons:

1. Tape measures are not of sufficient accuracy to measure within 1mm
2. The measurement method was flawed
3. The penalty applied was too harsh for the infraction

Of these the first is incorrect. The second is possible, but cannot be commented on by those of us who were not present. I would suggest that this is the only valid argument for an inaccurate measurement in this case.

The third is based on subjective reasoning. I agree completely that the penalty far exceeds what should be applied for a small infraction, but my agreement on this point does not make the tape measure any less accurate.

...

It is also not an issue of guilt/innocence, but rather one of compliance/non-compliance. I would have thought it obvious that non-compliance is assumed, and compliance must be proved. This is a necessary safety measure, and one that is adopted as standard engineering practice. This is why teams are not let onto the track until compliance is observed.

I (just like so many others) do not believe you or the other teams intended to subvert the rules and gain a competitive advantage by the subversion. As a result we would assume that you are innocent with respect to deliberate cheating, but that does not have an influence on compliance/non-compliance.

I apologise if I have offended by writing this. It is devastating to have a competition win stripped from you for a minor non-compliance. Myself, and many others would have been more than happy for you to get away with either a warning, or smaller points penalty if the size of the infraction was only 1-2mm.

Kev

theTTshark

07-20-2016, 09:30 AM

Is this what FSAE has really come to? Arguing over wing sizes being 1-3mm more than tolerance in respect to a freaking piece of rubber? I guarantee you that there's at least 1mm difference between tires, hell there might even be that much difference around the tire... No offense to the judges and scrutineers at FSUK, but this sounds like some political BS that we see in professional motorsports. It's just so backwards what everyone is focused on here.

I guarantee that I could go through the paddock and DQ every single car if I looked hard enough/long enough. This isn't supposed to be NASCAR, and I fear everyone is losing sight of what the competition is about because they're upset that finally after 30 years teams have figured out the way to win these events.

Pennyman

07-20-2016, 10:44 AM

sounds like tech should be using a FARO arm to check for wing compliance

coleasterling

07-20-2016, 11:38 AM

MCoach

07-20-2016, 12:38 PM

JasperC

07-20-2016, 01:20 PM

Kev,

No offence taken at all. We're all here to exchange opinions. I would also like to point out that I am not involved with the Delft team anymore at all, so I do not feel that a competition was "stripped from me". As you can read on the first page of this topic I was even one of the few to defend to organisation's decision to disqualify the teams involved.

If you're talking about a car presented to technical inspection prior to the event, I agree: the team wants to participate at an event so they need to prove compliance to the rules. In post-race scrutineering however, I am of the opinion that this is turned around. The team have already proven compliance before the race and the scrutineers expressed their satisfaction with that. It is possible that after the race, for whatever reason (intentional or not) the car is no longer compliant. But it is up to the scrutineer to prove so with high confidence. Otherwise you could just as well save the time and effort and reduce scrutineering prior to the event to safety things only. Let's not check whether a team has displayed their car number and just disqualify them afterwards if not. It's their own responsibility anyway. Right?

Regarding the measurement itself:

The statement from Delft quotes a deviation on the left side and the right side. This implies that the scrutineer didn't just measure the width of the tyres and the width of the wing, but even determined the relative position of the wing end plates with respect to the tyre walls. And this measurement should be taken using the car's longitudinal/lateral axes as a reference. You cannot use the tyre wall, or the wing end plate, or the front axle as a reference because they may deviate from the car's axes. Then how can you take this measurement so accurately?

Maybe it is possible and I'm just not inventive enough. But that's why I'm voicing my opinion.

I believe it would be to everyone's benefit if a statement could be made by the organisation regarding the following two points:
1. How accurate do they believe their own measurements to be and do they feel the teams should take this into account in their design?
2. Having seen what happened at FSUK, do they consider the rules (comparing aero dimensions to rubber) to be somewhat problematic and will they consider rewriting these rules in the future?

Again I want to repeat myself and stress that I agree to all of the following points: if a car is found to be non-compliant then a disqualification is just; it is the team's responsibility to be compliant at all times and in all conditions; if a team chooses to be on the limit then they knowingly take a risk. BUT, if you're going to disqualify someone then you need to be damn sure about what you're doing.

All of this is my personal opinion and not necessarily that of the Delft team.

I just hope all parties (teams and organisers) are willing to learn from this situation.

Cheers,
Jasper

Kevin Hayward

07-20-2016, 02:26 PM

Jasper,

I think we are on the same page. The problem would not be with the tape measure, but more with how it was used and what other reference points were considered. This is in keeping with the second possible objection and the only really valid one.

It would be pretty easy to measure relative width w.r.t. the tyre using another reference such as a string line. I doubt this would have been used, and as I mentioned before, anyone not present wouldn't be able to accurately comment on the measuring procedure. I would think that the reason both sides were measured was to account for any toe, which indicates some reasonable procedure may have been in effect. If the team was of the belief that the measurement was in error it would have been reasonable to show compliance through a better measuring method.

I agree with the posters stating that measuring the wing compared to the tyres is not the best way the intended effect of the rule should have been implemented. The intention was to force a design compromise, but a hard width/height box independent of tyres would be much easier to inspect. However even with the current rules it wouldn't be difficult to create a jig for measuring distance relative to the tyres. Parallel arms, pair of adjustable toe plates, calibrated laser lines, etc. There is even an ensured free box around the wheels to allow for jig setup. With the right reference in place a tape measure will do the job fine.

Kev

theTTshark

07-20-2016, 02:56 PM

Trent,

I understand and respect what you're saying, but why do teams feel the need to design to the limit, anyway? Making the wing smaller by a few mm to ensure absolute compliance is pretty easy and won't significantly affect performance. I support some kind of harsh penalty for teams who aren't compliant, although a DQ is going a bit too far.

Right back at you Cole! :) I get what you're saying, but then you'll have some judge asking you why you didn't build your car to the maximum allotment. And plus rules are rules, go right up to them and get as much as you can. If during inspection they go, "hey this won't work" say okay and fix it, but this is a whole other bag of worms. It was much easier to build to the limit when all you had to do was make sure your overall wing width was within your measurement and centered on the car. These DQs are the direct result of vague rules that never should have been implemented but were because people are mad that teams have finally figured out the winning formula for these events. These rules are the direct result of the rules committee trying to decrease the effectiveness of running wings, the problem is that the competition events are still the same. So it's not like your lap time simulator is going to tell you to suddenly not have as much downforce. What you end up with are teams that are building to the limit of the rules just as they were before to try and maximize downforce, but now you have measurements that can be skewed even more easily than they could with the old rules depending on who does it and when. Something similar nearly happened to Missouri S&T in 2013 or 2014 at Lincoln post-endurance for their rear wing endplate distance behind the rear tire. It ended up that the scrutineers were using a plumbob off the rear endplate on an non-level concrete floor! I just am speaking out because if a competition is going to start calling out teams for this, then there's going to have to be a whole level of "how much under the limit is safe" type of approach to designing these cars. Which at that point do you have to assume being safe by 3mm on ever measurement? So then I ask what's the point of the rules as they are written if I have to assume an arbitrary length modifier because Joe uses his tape measure differently than Jane? Should we have every FS/FSAE scrutineer measure 60 objects so that teams can build cars to the person who is the most out of tolerance? At that point we are treading in some very dangerous water.

Now I know what I will hear in return. "The scruiteneers are just volunteers you can't expect them to be that accurate." I answer that two-fold. 1) The teams aren't professionals either, so why hold them to such a standard if you can't hold your event staff to those same standards? 2) Don't make the rules so complicated and easily manipulated then.

Ultimately several student run teams ended up having a competition ruined over a very inaccurate measurement. I think it is very interesting how Michigan had no issues with this despite just as many teams building wings to the limit of the rules. Sorry for this post being such a brain dump, but it's really frustrating to see a student competition come to this.

Swiftus

07-20-2016, 03:45 PM

During my time on GFR in 13 and 14, I participated in 7 events and was directly involved in the car's tech inspections and parc ferme inspections. I don't think we ever left parc ferme without some system or component of our car being inspected for rules compliance after endurance. I think we had to re-test noise in 4 of those events, check our BOTS in 2, check our aero in 3, re-weigh our car in 3 or 4, reinspect our driver gear in 1, check rollover helmet clearance in 1, inspect the air restrictor in 5 (likely would have been 7 but we had 2 endurance DNFs), and retested driver egress in 1. We won 5 of 7 of those events so I came to expect that if you are likely to win or place in an event, your car and driver are going to under extra scrutiny for rules compliance.

That said, there are some stated or unstated 'squish' zones for rules compliance. A stated example would be overall weight change of 5kg being allowed because of tire wear etc and an unstated example might be it is ok for your driver to no longer wear their helmet and head sock as they get pushed back to the pit.

I wasn't at the UK comp, so I don't think I can comment on this specific set of rules DQs because everything I know about the situation is here-say. I just thought my personal experience might help others broaden their view of what happens to the podium-competitive teams at a normal FS competition.

Kevin Hayward

07-21-2016, 12:11 AM

Trent,

There were professional scrutineers present and volunteering.

Kev

07-21-2016, 08:26 PM

Ahmad,

Your Team has taken the first step, which is always necessary if you want to get anywhere!

Judging by photos of your car, I would say your Team is heading in the right general direction. Your final step as this year's Team is to try to ensure that there is good "knowledge transfer" to next year's Team.

Namely:
1. At a big-picture level, try to convince next year's team that a simple car, built early, and well tested = much higher finishing position than "highly optimised mini-F1 car" ... that doesn't run....
2. At detail level, stress that good Team-member skills in things like welding, bleeding brakes (!), and use of provenly good prior-art techniques such as REIB, will get you much higher up the ladder than endless iterations of CAD, FEA, CFD, etc., on a computer screen.

And make all your next year Team members read every word written by Big Bird.

Ahh, how I would enjoy building Geoff's "Anti-Technology-Special". Minimalist tube-frame car on sticky 10" Hoosiers. A super-reliable sub-30 hp air-cooled-single with NO gearbox, just a big clutch. Driven with right foot mostly flat to the floor...

Seeing the number of poor endurance scores in FSUK-16, I reckon above well-driven ATS would be easy top-ten! :)
~~~o0o~~~

Kevin,

Obviously, TOO MANY VALVES! :)

I am sure your next car will be better in that respect... ;) And I still think it should be able to challenge for top spot in a Euro comp.

Also tough about Monash breaking a drive-shaft. Would have been good to see both Oz cars showing their true potential.
~~~o0o~~~

Bemo,

Although I'm not happy about what happened in UK, I believe that teams should start to understand that first of all it is their task to make sure the car is rules compliant at any stage of the competition.

The problem is that the Rules are so badly written that the above is impossible.

(And please note that this is not an attack on yourself or other Scrutineers, because you are the unfortunate "meat in the sandwich" between the stupidly written Rules, and the students who suffer the consequences.)

Specifically, and not necessarily related to FSUK-16, I would like to know how you have scrutineered cars with respect to the "bent tube" Rule T3.5.5. Here is my last post pointing out the stupidity of this Rule.
http://www.fsae.com/forums/showthread.php?12064-Rule-T3.5.5-Frame-bend-supports-SES-REJECTED&p=123486&viewfull=1#post123486

Assuming T3.5.5 is still part of the Rule Book (I have been away for a while, so may have missed changes?), I see three possible outcomes of the Scrutineering process.
1. The Rule is strictly enforced, as per my linked post above, and ALL tubeframe cars (that I have ever seen) fail scrutineering and cannot compete.
2. All the Scrutineers at any given competition agree beforehand to ignore the Rule, because it is so STUPID.
3. The Rule is enforced on an ad hoc basis, with some some cars arbitrarily being passed, others arbitrarily failed.

None of the above approaches is conducive to "engineering education". In fact, quite the opposite. But the Rules Committee have been rock-solid in their support of T3.5.5, and have refused to discuss these issues openly, let alone admit that T3.5.5 is a huge cock-up that should be fixed (namely by deleting the stupidity!).

Anyway, I would like to know if you have failed any cars that have three tubes in the XYZ configuration as in the linked post?
If not, then why not?

Z

Bemo

07-22-2016, 07:01 AM

The last thing I'd do is to defend the rules book. There is quite a lot of it which makes scrutineering an unnecessary complicated task. Giving the dimensions of aerodynamic devices relative to tires and to the ground is bullshit as it is leading to the situation we are discussing at the moment. If you'd just give a max. width for a front wing everything would be much easier. Or just not giving any limitation to the width of a front wing would make it even easier and the teams would have to really think about how wide to make it. If you give a max. width all you have to do is to build a wing of that width without wasting any thought about it.

In the current situation the only possible way for the teams to deal with it is to leave some safety margin to avoid a situation like this year's FS UK.

The rule T3.5.5 is still in the rules book as the years before. The only way to interpret it in a way that will somehow work is to only apply it if a frame member which is defined in the rules is made of multiple tubes. For example the triangulating member of the front bulkhead suppert. Usually you can't find a straight single piece tube which is fulfilling that rule, instead you have to combine two tubes which are together that member. Therefore it is considered as a member in the primary structure made from multiple members and needs to be triangulated. It's not exactly according the wording of the rule as the rule would more or less apply to any node in the chassis, but it's the only way how to handle it in reality.

Ahmad Rezq

07-22-2016, 09:13 AM

Z,
we still have another competition ( Formula student Germany ) hope we can gain more experience.
----------------------
It's time to build some beam axles for the next car :D

Claude Rouelle

07-23-2016, 03:32 PM

Adam Farabaugh

07-23-2016, 10:05 PM

If you'd just give a max. width for a front wing everything would be much easier.

This has been mentioned by a few people.
Under the current rules there is a tradeoff between track width (narrow = less weight, faster through slaloms) vs. aero plan area (more A = more downforce).
Getting rid of this direct tradeoff may not be a bad thing, but like you said, every aero package will be the max width and cars will either start competing to be the narrowest = lightest, or - wait for it - make the edge of their wheels line up with the edge of their wings (any wider and gaining width for no aero gain, any narrower and giving up possible gains in racing line).

I think a lot of the teams that got disqualified have some extremely smart people on them, and I don't want anyone to take this personally... but why not just make your wings half an inch narrower? They would have been just as fast. I don't think the decision to DQ was right, but damn... could've avoided the whole thing with some clearance margin designed into their vehicles.

Kevin Hayward

07-25-2016, 12:29 AM

There have been many, many reasons why I have not wanted to attend the UK competitions as a design judge for several years. Unfortunately the recent mess just did confirmed that choice. For God sake this is Formula Student, not Formula One.

Claude,

I'm sorry to hear this. The design judging team at the UK was a good one. Our team was challenged and did not finish where it had hoped. However they left feeling that they were judged appropriately. Throughout the process the judges were very positive and it was an enjoyable process for the team. They provided good feedback, and the whole event lacked the aggression I have seen at other comps. We will be glad to return the UK again in a couple of years.

As you are aware the design judges are not the scrutineers, and vice versa.

Kev

Claude Rouelle

07-25-2016, 05:23 AM

Glad you enjoyed it.

A few years ago we (design judges) were told that one specific UK uni had to be in the design final. That was before we even had seen that car. Not what I wanted to see / hear in any FS competitions.
The team/car went in the final because it "had to" finished last because it did not belong there.

My experience of FS UK (I am only speaking for myself) is that many design judges are not interested or curious about or even against new technologies and want students to build a car that reassemble the car
they built in the 70's or 80's

Disqualifying a car for 1 or 2 mm is of wing width after that car went several times to tech (that is what I understand) is shame for the organization. It goes totally outside the spirit of FS.

Rigor and spirit can go together. See you soon at FSG?

Luniz

07-26-2016, 05:54 AM

So, just speculating here, maybe some cars "had to be disqualified" in order to push some other cars up the rankings? I feel a conspiracy theory developing ;-)

Pat Clarke

07-27-2016, 03:50 AM

Lutz,

I know you are 'speculating' and finished with a 'winkie' but that speculation is not helpful.

What I would like to know is who were the scrutineers who led the checks that led to disqualification?

Cheers

Pat

Claude Rouelle

07-27-2016, 03:50 AM

Conspiracy theory or reality, or not, that is not the first time it has that taste. So sad. Not what a Formula Student spirit should be.

JulianH

07-27-2016, 01:47 PM

Yeah Claude, back in the day when Hertfordshire was in the Design Finals. 2012 is already such a long time ago ;)

Pat,
of course there should not be a speculation on this.
Btw. in 2013 when we nearly lost our Overall Victory, the honorable Mr. Royce measured the undertray as too wide. He probably was right that it was too wide, but the other scrutineers then probably measured wrong... it would have been devastating.

Still, while looking at the 2016 Rules, we should have known this ;)

http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160727/y6q4qkos.jpg (http://www.directupload.net)

Bemo

07-28-2016, 02:25 AM

Pat Clarke

07-29-2016, 01:38 PM

Thanks Ben,

I had heard from another source that is was Michael and Suzanne Royce.

Pat

Claude Rouelle

07-29-2016, 06:18 PM

Michael,

You have been a contributor to this forum. You want to use the opportunity to give your side of the story?

Claude

Michael Royce

07-30-2016, 12:34 PM

Claude, Pat, Ben, et al,
To set the record straight, Dan Jones, who is the current Vice-Chairman of the FSAE Rules Committee was the Chief Scrutineer at Formula Student again this year. As has been the case for the past number of years, I helped him out at the post Endurance Parc Ferme. Suzanne was also at the competition, working the initial scutineering and Driver Change during Endurance, but was not a part of the inspection team in Parc Ferme.

This was the first year we have had any post Endurance problems at FS UK in the 19 years I have worked it. I believe we have had some energy meter DQ's on the electrics, including 1 again this year, but nothing mechanical.

Making sure that the aero components are within the rules is not something that can be done quickly. It requires attention to detail and must be done on a flat, horizontal surface. Therefore, at FS this year, the Parc Ferme inspections were done on the steel plate surface of the weigh bridge inside the Scrutineering Building. During the inspections, we allow one member of that team to be present (no other competitors present). This year, when we found some "problems", we re-inspected each of the four teams in question with several members of that team present, and even had them confirm the methodology AND each of the measurements we took. The numbers were confirmed and passed on to the competition organizers who had to decide what action to take. They are the ones who decide if a team should be penalized, and if so, what the penalty should be, not the scrutineers. The scrutineers are just the policemen, not the judges or juries.

Following the decision to DQ the teams (there was a fifth for an energy meter violation, I believe), there was a general statement about the DQ's posted at the competition. I believe 4 of the teams protested the DQ. A protest Committee heard the protests, and after some discussion, denied them, letting the DQ's stand. Since the competition, I understand that the teams who were DQ'd have already received individual letters from IMechE with a full explanation. I also understand that in the next couple of days, so that everyone has the full, correct information and is not relying on rumor and innuendo, IMechE will post a full explanation of the the reasons for the DQ's and why the protests submitted by four of the DQ'd teams were denied. When it is posted I will add the link to this thread.

Earlier on this thread, I think someone said "it was only 1 or 2 mms". Sorry, FSAE/FS teams need to understand that these dimensions have no tolerance. A 20 mm restrictor is 20.00, +0.00, -20.00! Teams seem to understand that. So why don't they understand that the widths and heights of the aero components are that way too? If the scrutineers allow an extra 1 mm, why not 2mm? And then why not 5mm, etc? Where would one stop? The rules are the rules, like it or not, and the scrutineers' job is to enforce them. That is why scrutineers are never the most popular people at a track (unlike Design Judges??!!)

Michael Royce.

P.S. Although I was not a part of it, I believe there was one team DQ'd after Endurance at FSAE Lincoln this year.

Jay Lawrence

07-31-2016, 10:49 PM

Yeah... a precision machined restrictor with a single reference point (the throat diameter) is not the same as some composite measured (actually, re-measured) relative to some rubber. When the rules are not written correctly one should look to the intent of the rules for best judgement. It doesn't sound like that was the case.

08-01-2016, 02:37 PM

Mr. Royce, Claude, Pat and others interested.

First of all thank you Mr Royce for your view. I've been attending FSUK for 16 years now and indeed this was the first time I've seen anything like this. Many records were broken this year, I just never expected it to be this way.
Please allow me to give my 2cents.

1a. Rules=rules right? Let's investigate.
The reason for DQ was given in the violation of T9.2.1b (front wing width) and T1.2.3 (comply with the rules at all times during the event).
However: where in the rules does it state that breach of these rules is an automatic disqualification? In the FSAE rules I found 18 counts if the word "disqualification" an 7 counts of "forfeit", none of them in T1 or T9, but very specifically in other articles.
In fact T1.1 states the following: "The following requirements and restrictions will be enforced through technical inspection. Noncompliance must be corrected and the car re-inspected before the car is allowed to operate under power."
So does that say that a DQ should not be possible at all in these cases? No, I'm saying is that it's not in the rules and therefore it's at the discretion of the organization to apply a penalty they see fit.

1b. Rules=rules. Let's investigate further.
Let's take a look at the Post Event or Parc Ferme rules. The only ones I could find is D8.16 Post Event Refueling and D8.24 Post Event Engine Check. To my suprise NOWHERE in the rules does it state that any other checks (e.g. wings) are to be carried out.
Yes I've checked FSUK rules too.

So far for the rules=rules discussion. Suprisingly the imposed penalty nor the post event check is in the rules.

But let's not stop here. What about the Intent of the Rules for e.g. T1.2.3?
I could imagine that there are 2 cases which justify a post event check on cars, even though it's not described in the rules:
1. Suspected safety issue with the car.
2. Suspected foul play by the team (intentionally or not) which gives a clear unfair advantage.

I deliberately say suspected, because the teams should be innocent until proven guilty.
I would argue that none of these 2 cases applied to the teams that were disqualified. They simply didn't put on other (not inspected) wings in order to get an advantage and it was certainly no safety issue.

So now what? It's not in the rules and it's not against the intent of the rule.............

But we're forgetting the most important thing: common sense. Dear organizing committee of FSUK, one of you said: we're trying to teach the teams a lesson. With all due respect, you're teaching them the wrong lesson.

You should be teaching them that a penalty should be applied according to the severity of the breach of the intent and, after that, the letter of the rule. You should be teaching them that Formula Student has become more than an just engineering competition in which everybody blindly follows the letter of the rules.
You should be teaching them about the spirit of the competition. Just look at how teams tell each other about their designs, how they interact and how they help each other out.

Did those disqualified teams cheat? No. Did they gain an unfair advantage? No. Did they pose a safety hazard? No. Did it make sense to disqualify them? No.
In my humble opinion, above all you should be teaching them to use the single most valuable asset that they have: their common sense.

Kind regards,
Miki Hegedus

Faculty Advisor Formula Student Team Delft

Kevin Hayward

08-01-2016, 09:59 PM

Here is the rule allowing technical inspection at any time:

A3.7 Right to Impound
SAE and other competition organizing bodies reserve the right to impound any onsite registered vehicles at any time during a competition for inspection and examination by the organizers, officials and technical inspectors.

Here is the general regulation providing latitude to the competition organisers:

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 rule about maintaining specifications:

T1.2.3 The vehicle must maintain all required specifications, e.g. ride height, suspension travel, braking capacity (pad material/composition), sound level and wing location throughout the competition.

The rule about right to reinspect:

S2.8 Correction and Re-inspection
S2.8.1 If any part of a vehicle does not comply with the Rules, or is otherwise deemed to be a concern, then the team must correct the problem and have the car re-inspected.
S2.8.2 The judges and inspectors have the right to re-inspect any vehicle at any time during the competition and require correction of non-compliance.

There is a link to the concept of "mechanical integrity". There is merit to assume a car may be only deemed to pass this requirement if it passes technical inspection:

D8.18.8 Mechanical Problem
No time penalty. The time taken for mechanical inspection under a “mechanical black flag” is considered officials’ time and is not included in the teams’ total time. However, if the inspection reveals a mechanical integrity problem the vehicle may be disqualified under Rule D1.1 “Vehicle Integrity and Disqualification”. If the car has a tire puncture, the team may opt to change the wheel and tire for an identical wheel and tire. In cases where the puncture is caused by track debris and not a result of the component failure on the vehicle, the time will not count towards the team’s total time. Tires must be changed in the driver change area.

This is a reference to the following:

Vehicle Integrity and Disqualification
D1.1.1 During the Dynamic Events, the mechanical integrity of the vehicle must be maintained.
D1.1.2 Any vehicle condition that could compromise vehicle integrity, or could compromise the track surface or could pose a potential hazard to participants, e.g. damaged suspension, brakes or steering components, fluid leaks, dragging bodywork, lost or loose body panels, or a malfunctioning brake light will be a valid reason for exclusion by the official until the problem is rectified.
NOTE: If this happens during the Endurance Event, it means disqualification from the heat.

I would say here that the term mechanical integrity is poorly defined, but I would say that it would not be far from correct to assume this means compliant with technical regulations in the context provided. This is up for interpretation so would defer to the organisers in terms of definition as per A3.10.

...

In review it is clear that the organisers have the right to reinspect any vehicle at any time. The rules do not enforce a Parc Ferme, but they leave the option open to scrutineers and organisers. Some competitions do not choose to conduct post event technical inspection, but there is previous examples of this being applied, and teams being disqualified for not meeting post-inspections.

In any race it is reasonable to assume that anyone gaining an advantage from breaking the rules is likely to be fast, hence the basis for technical inspection of high performing teams. This was similar to the reasoning used for Hertfordshire being required to disassemble their fuel system for inspection (which they passed).

Unfortunately Delft was found to be non-compliant in what was a routine post event check clearly allowed within both the wording and intent of the rules. It was a minor infraction.

From a logical point of view once the infraction was noted by the scrutineers the organisers had a difficult decision to make. They clearly needed to apply a penalty to preserve the integrity of the competition. The two options would be an arbitrary points loss or a DQ. The former has some very obvious problems as they would then be deciding the exact finishing place of the offending team, it also has to my knowledge no precedent in the competition. The latter does have precedent (although maybe not for the particular violation).

Knowing Michael Royce and some of the scrutineers (also having scrutineered at a previous competition) I find it hard to believe that any would be happy to find teams non-compliant to the rules in these inspections, and would have much preferred to have the cars pass easily.

...

Finally any argument about the "spirit of the competition" are inherently flawed. Students, teams, organisers, judges, faculty advisers, industry etc. all have different ideas as to what is the spirit and intent of the competition. If we refer to A1.3: Good Engineering Practices we have the following:

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

Many of us have worked in engineering fields where a limit is an absolute limit (sometimes in cases where the standards appear poorly defined or inappropriate). Believe it or not some of the organisers believe this competition offers a chance for some students to learn particularly difficult lessons about compliance while playing with racecars instead of on bigger projects where much more is at stake.

Personally I think the penalty was very harsh, but felt that given the circumstances the organisers had few reasonable options.

Kind Regards,

Kev

08-02-2016, 12:23 AM

Bemo,

The last thing I'd do is to defend the rules book. There is quite a lot of it which makes scrutineering an unnecessary complicated task. Giving the dimensions of aerodynamic devices relative to tires and to the ground is bullshit ...
...
The rule T3.5.5 is still in the rules book as the years before. The only way to interpret it in a way that will somehow work is to only apply it ... [in a limited way]...

Thanks for response. I guess all scrutineers at all these competitions must make similar ad hoc interpretations of these many stupid Rules, just so the students can have some sort of "educational exercise" (ie. actually drive their cars on the track).

But will the Rules Commitee make any attempt to improve the situation? From recent experience the answer if definitely not.

The FS/FSAE-Rules have been getting steadily worse (ie. more complicated, with the addition of many very poorly written clauses) with each successive iteration. Well, at least for last several re-writes... And "open and transparent" discussions of these changes are non-existent. Students are rightly expected to "defend" their decisions, but not so the RC.

The controversial DQs at this FSUK (ie. most of this thread) are the direct result of the atrociously written Rule changes. The RC owes an apology to the disadvantaged Teams. The RC members should then admit to themselves that they are NOT COMPETENT at their jobs, and quietly retire.

The FS/FSAE-Rules need to be thoroughly revised, in a competent way. This is most easily done by adopting a completely open and transparent approach (because the oversight of many eyes catches the bloopers). The primary objective of such revision should be to return to "improving the education of young engineers", and to move away from yet another "Mini-F1 competition".

The only way above will happen is if current FS/FSAE Teams, and their alumni, MAKE IT HAPPEN.

Z

(PS. Bemo, enjoy FS Austria. It looks like a well-organised, and fun ( :) !), competition.)

Michael Royce

08-02-2016, 03:40 PM

As promised, the IMechE has now published its rationale behind the disqualifications at Formula Student. The link is:
http://formulastudent.imeche.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/disqualifications-from-endurance-and-efficiency-events-at-formula-student-2016.pdf?sfvrsn=0

Miki,
I fully understand that you and your team are really upset about what happened. Be assured that experienced scrutineers take no pleasure in having teams disqualified at any motorsports event, especially at FSAE, FH or FS, where the students have put countless hours and their hearts and souls into the car. The Delft team has been a pleasure to work with in the past, and I hope that will be the case at any future competitions where we are both present.

Kev,
Thank you for your post. Nuff said.

Z,
It appears you have an ongoing problem with the FSAE Rules, as I seem to recollect you have expressed similar feelings on a number of prior posts. As a previous Chairman of the FSAE Rules Committee (2000-9), I personally wrote many of the current rules. Writing rules that are clear, concise, easy for some one for whom English is a second or third language, plus making it relatively easy for the scrutineers to enforce, is no mean task. I say that having had to study the rules for F1, WEC, Moto GP, Formula E, SCCA Club Racing, Pirelli World Challenge and Rally America as well as FSAE/FS and Formula Hybrid all within the last year. Is your problem with specific rules or with the Rules in general? If it is the former, and yes, there are some with which I am not particularly enamored, then perhaps you should submit a proposed change to the Rules Committee for consideration. That is how it is done. If it is with the rules in general, perhaps you should volunteer to take on the task of re-writing them.

Michael Royce.

08-02-2016, 09:36 PM

Z,
... Is your problem with specific rules or with the Rules in general? If it is the former, and yes, there are some with which I am not particularly enamored, then perhaps you should submit a proposed change to the Rules Committee for consideration. That is how it is done.

Michael,

Having spent well over half a century "doing things", I have found that there are a great many things that are a complete waste of time doing, so I don't bother doing them.

One of these is to "submit a proposed change to the Rules Committee for consideration.". I know this is a waste of time because I have already submitted such proposed changes very publicly, for many of these ridiculous rules. I know that RC members have read these public proposals ... and then ignored them (see next paragraph). I know that private submissions would receive even less consideration.

For example, see bottom page 3 this thread, and the link there, for the case of the "bent tube" Rule T3.5.5. Read the linked thread and see that RC members were well aware of the problems with this Rule well over a year ago. This Rule, if strictly implemented, would make every tubeframe car (that I have ever seen) illegal, and subject to a post-Endurance DQ.

So, for example, if Monash did well at FSUK-16 (ie. no broken driveshaft) and were given a post-Enduro re-scrutineering, then would you have failed them because of T3.5.5? Their frame has many nodes that are, strictly speaking, illegal!

Anyway, the root cause of the problems with the Rules is the "Peter Principle" (ie. "people rise to their level of incompetence, and then fight tooth and nail to stay there..."). The more than doubling in size of the Rule Book over the years is the direct result of many incompetent dimwits trying to justify their position on the RC by "making their mark".

As I (and, yes, others also!) have pointed out many times, there are umpteen very poorly worded clauses in the Rules, mostly in the most recent additions. There is almost no attempt at clear definitions (eg. what is an "aerodynamic device", and how is it different to bodywork, or the driver's helmet...). And I have seen elephants in zoos that produce better drawings than those that appear in the official FSAE Rule Book.

These FS/FSAE competitions are, primarily, supposed to be about "educating young engineers". As such, the Rule Book should be an archetypal example of "clear communication". (Very briefly, this means it should be "complete" (= with all relevant info), and "concise" (= all info given only once, such as in a correctly-drawn "engineering drawing" for dimensional data).)

At the moment the Rule Book is a disgrace. But "submission of proposed changes" to the current RC will make no difference. It is the RC itself that has to change.

Z

(PS 1. Read Bemo's post, top page 4, to see that he must ignore Rule T3.5.5 for certain nodes, just to allow tubeframe cars to run.)

(PS 2. Taken from your linked IMechE pdf. -> "The rules limits are absolute and not subject to any tolerance...". All engineering dimensions have tolerances! The implied "tolerances" for wing-widths are "+0/-[outside of tyres dimension]". Good engineering communication would make this clear.)

NickFavazzo

08-02-2016, 09:46 PM

I think it is pretty damn harsh, considering these cars passed the initial scrutineering checks, had the teams known that the wings were wide on the first day of competition, they would have had a chance to rectify the problem, it wasn't like they were taking the piss and trying to cheat the competition. Rules are rules, yes that is true but don't go telling people "yes your car is fine" then come around and change your mind.

Not only that, as an arbitrary % of performance, the wider wings what, would be good for 1-2% if they were lucky. A single cone strike could blow the wider wing benefits away. Would it not have been fairer to dock a number of points from the dynamic events rather than all out DQ? What harsher penalty do you now have for a team deliberately breaking the rules?

The team/s that were DQ'd deserve an apology from the event organisers, to be told your car passes, then, someone measured differently, and told them no it doesn't is absolute crap. I understand the people are volunteers but if that wing measurement is so important (as was apparent by the punishment) why the hell was it not checked and triple checked initially, saving this entire situation from happening?

Thijs

08-02-2016, 10:35 PM

Mr Royce,

First of all, let me say that I speak on a personal note, as a Delft alumnus.
You express sympathy for the emotions of the team members. However, it still doesn’t seem like you really understand why they are upset.

Let me go back to FSG 2013. The Delft guys forgot to connect the energy meter during skidpad. As a result, they were disqualified. It cost them about 60 points. Normally that’s the end of any chances at an overall victory. There’s no way a car will use more than 80kW on a skidpad track, let alone a wet one. There was obviously no intention to cheat. However, the rules are quite clear: your energy meter data needs to prove you didn’t breach the limit. They didn’t have the required data through their own fault, ergo: DQ. Rules are rules. Plenty of people upset, but no complaints after all was said and done.
I bring up this example because I’m of course most familiar with Delft’s history, but I also recall the guys from Zurich taking their DQ at FSUK16 with some humor at the award ceremony. They readily admitted their mistake, and accepted the outcome.

However, there are reasons we’re still talking about the whole wing thing. This decision feels ad hoc, arbitrary and excessive.

Kevin points to rule D1.1. (See his post on the previous page, this one is long enough already..)
I don’t think mechanical integrity is as poorly defined as he does. I feel that the dictionary definition of integrity (i.e. ‘the state of being whole and undivided’), as well as all the examples given in D1.1.2, make it quite clear that this is primarily about safety: Please don’t drive around with a car that has bits falling off or stuff leaking out.
More importantly, the added note about the endurance event (and only the endurance event!) makes it clear that in case of a DQ, it is not handed out as a penalty: it is simply the logical outcome of having to fix your car halfway the endurance, keeping in mind all the other rules pertaining to what you’re allowed to do during endurance. If your car breaks down in the second autocross heat, you don’t lose the time of your first heat. In fact, if you fix your car quickly enough and have it rescruitineered in time, you’re welcome to take your third and fourth heat. None of this applies, all cars that were checked after the FSUK endurance clearly made it across the finish line in one piece.

He also points to rule S2.8.
However, at no point does this rule state that there is a penalty involved if a car is found to be rule non-compliant, or what that penalty should be (this goes for T1.2.3 as well). It only states that correction of non-compliance is required when found.
In the case of an electric power infringement, the rules are clear. For restrictors, it is clear to all how they are measured, and it’s clear to all teams what happens if you fail. These two parts, along with engine displacement, are the only ones mentioned in rule D8.24, indicating that, although yes, any part may be checked at any time according to the rules, the rules committee recognizes that these are the ones that matter:

D8.24 Post Event Engine Check
The organizer reserves the right to impound any vehicle immediately after the event to check engine displacement (method to be determined by the organizer) and restrictor size and for EVs to check the data to ensure that the maximum power limit was not exceeded

For other parts, it’s not nearly that clear if/why/when they should be checked, or what the penalty should be when rule non-compliance is confirmed.
Now, if a team has clearly cheated or otherwise gained an advantage, I’m all for invoking rules A3.7 and A3.10, and handing out a penalty. However, as soon as rule A3.10 comes into play for whatever reason, officials can no longer just throw their hands up and point to the rules as the source for the specific sentence. They themselves now fully own the decision to penalize, as well as what the penalty should be. Nowhere does it say that DQ is the only option. In fact there are plenty of rules (especially for statics) that prescribe point penalties that are proportional to the infringement (such as omissions or late submissions). FSG rule 6.3 even specifically gives the amount of points lost depending on how much the parc ferme car weight deviates from the initial scrutineering weight. (with a 5kg tolerance btw).
Rule A3.10 also means that the organisers are free to hand out e.g. a 50 point penalty (equal e.g. to what rule S6.15.2 prescribes at some competitions as a penalty for second year frames), while recognizing that the amount of points gained through wings that are 0.2% too wide is in the single digits (if any are gained).

[an arbitrary points loss] has some very obvious problems as they would then be deciding the exact finishing place of the offending team.

Ehm, that is true when DQing a team too. It’s the difference between choosing to apply an arbitrary 400 point penalty, or an equally arbitrary 50 point penalty, which can at least be explained as harsh, but somewhat proportional. Why not a 675 point penalty? The wings were probably too wide for the entire competition after all. If we are to trust the organizers to rightly decide when a penalty is given, we should also be able to trust that they will do so without regard for where the team will end up relative to others.
Had all four teams gotten for example a 50 point penalty, none of the other teams could have complained about the four of them getting off lightly, and a clear signal would have been sent that from now on teams should design for larger safety margins. At the same time, the intense efforts of more than 200 people in four different teams would not have been degraded to such an extent.

Mr Royce, on more than one occasion have you and other officials stated that strict decisions like the one to disqualify these teams are intended to prepare students for the harsh world that they will find themselves in after their studies.
You’re putting up a bit of a cartoon version of what professional careers look like. The real world is not binary. People don’t automatically get fired over an honest mistake with minor consequences. A good manager will look at the impact and the intentions.

Since we’re talking about racecars: days before FSUK, Nico Rosberg got to finish the Austrian GP with his front wing stuck under his car (http://e1.365dm.com/16/07/768x432/rosberg-nico-austrian-gp-f1_3494613.jpg?20160703154154), sparks flying, after an aggressive, unsafe manoeuvre. I’m pretty sure he was breaking one or two rules about wing location. Did he get disqualified? No. The marshals gave him a 10 second penalty. Too little to even affect his final result. They judged the impact of the rules infraction and handed out a penalty they deemed fitting. This is not just the real world, this is the industry FSUK most eagerly points to as a potential future employer for FS team members.

Some people may not agree with me on what I’m about to say, but I feel that to some extent organizers shouldn’t want to know if tiny changes have occurred after initial scrutineering that will have no influence on lap times anyway, as long as there are no safety issues, or unfairly gained advantages. Scrutineers also don’t go around checking cars for any bolts that they might have missed earlier, or that have been changed out such that all of a sudden only one thread protrudes from a lock nut, ready to then hand out a DQ.
I have inspected cars. I’m convinced that if a scrutineer looks long and hard enough, he/she can find something that’s not quite right on pretty much any car.

This comes back to the point as to why this one is different than most DQ’s. It feels like a gotcha, and not just to those directly involved.
Tiny infractions, on parts found rule compliant earlier and that obviously haven't changed, heavily penalized on 4 out of the 5 fastest autocross cars that finished endurance, and no one else.
I want to believe them when the organisation states that they remain convinced that the correct action was taken, that the measure they decided upon was fitting for the offense.
I want to believe you when you say that no pleasure was taken in disqualifying the teams.
However, I also think that the organizers could have tried harder to avoid any impression that all this was just to make some point, or who knows what.
Defensible from a rules point of view? Sure, but with Rule A3.10 in hand that means nothing. Anything can be defended. Did they have 'few reasonable options?' They had all the options they wanted.

Here is what I propose: Measure all the aerodynamic elements properly at initial scrutineering. If approved: seal the parts by putting small stickers on every single element. (In fact, FSG already does this in some locations to signify wing trailing edges that have been checked and approved.) At the end of endurance, check parts that are invisible, but that can have a large influence on performance. In the case of combustion cars: Fuel tanks and restrictors. In the case of electric cars: Energy meters.
Quick check for missing wing stickers, and done.
It’s clearer to everyone, and nobody has to worry that their previously approved, unchanged geometry is all of a sudden disapproved because of a tire that crept up a rim a bit more than usual. Or if perhaps their front tire walls have shrunk inward by 1.5mm due to decreased tire pressure after 1.5 hours in the shade of the parc fermé pit box before being measured, compared to driving in the sun on a hot track.

Thijs

Westly

08-03-2016, 03:26 AM

Some thoughts on the issue for what it is worth...

I think it is pretty damn harsh, considering these cars passed the initial scrutineering checks, had the teams known that the wings were wide on the first day of competition, they would have had a chance to rectify the problem, it wasn't like they were taking the piss and trying to cheat the competition. Rules are rules, yes that is true but don't go telling people "yes your car is fine" then come around and change your mind.

This is not confirmed from what I have read here. For all I know they could have changed their VD setup which made their aerodynamics package no longer rules compliant.

Not only that, as an arbitrary % of performance, the wider wings what, would be good for 1-2% if they were lucky. A single cone strike could blow the wider wing benefits away. Would it not have been fairer to dock a number of points from the dynamic events rather than all out DQ? What harsher penalty do you now have for a team deliberately breaking the rules?

You don't need a harsher penalty - the penalty is the penalty where you break the rules intentionally or not. If we start making judgement calls on if a breach was intentional/un-intentional and the performance impact of the breach then this will get extremely messy in my opinion.
Obviously delft though that running extremely close to the rules mandated maximum wing width was worth the extra performance - why take this away from the team? This is arguable the best part of FSAE - letting the team decide these trade offs. We used to apply tolerances into parts like this - ie: vehicle track was +5mm the minimum, wings were installed with 2/3mm clearance and were checked if we changed setups (adjustable as they were unsprung) - to ensure compliance with the rules.

The team's that were DQ'd deserve an apology from the event organisers, to be told your car passes, then, someone measured differently, and told them no it doesn't is absolute crap. I understand the people are volunteers but if that wing measurement is so important (as was apparent by the punishment) why the hell was it not checked and triple checked initially, saving this entire situation from happening?

Why didn't the team check and triple check that they maintained rules compliance?. Why push that responsibility back onto the competition organisers? Maybe it was thought they could get away with a setup that passed tech - but was outside the rules for endurance itself? - all we know is that the passed at tech (maybe the scruitineer stuffed up?!) but they were failed at endurance.... Either way the team should have ensured their car was rules compliant in my opinion.

Since we’re talking about racecars: days before FSUK, Nico Rosberg got to finish the Austrian GP with his front wing stuck under his car (http://e1.365dm.com/16/07/768x432/rosberg-nico-austrian-gp-f1_3494613.jpg?20160703154154), sparks flying, after an aggressive, unsafe manoeuvre. I’m pretty sure he was breaking one or two rules about wing location. Did he get disqualified? No. The marshals gave him a 10 second penalty. Too little to even affect his final result. They judged the impact of the rules infraction and handed out a penalty they deemed fitting. This is not just the real world, this is the industry FSUK most eagerly points to as a potential future employer for FS team members.

F1 cars do get disqualified after races if they are outside of the technical regulations. Ie: Riciardo being disqualified for excessive fuel rates in 2014 and a similar situation to Delft when Force India were disqualified after the race as their wings were too wide at the Australian GP in 2011. Rosberg's wing is a different situation in my opinion, ie: mechanical damage to component not a breach of the rules and would be covered by the rules regarding mechanical integrity on the track in FSAE.

Some people may not agree with me on what I’m about to say, but I feel that to some extent organizers shouldn’t want to know if tiny changes have occurred after initial scrutineering that will have no influence on lap times anyway, as long as there are no safety issues, or unfairly gained advantages. Scrutineers also don’t go around checking cars for any bolts that they might have missed earlier, or that have been changed out such that all of a sudden only one thread protru
des from a lock nut, ready to then hand out a DQ.
I have inspected cars. I’m convinced that if a scrutineer looks long and hard enough, he/she can find something that’s not quite right on pretty much any car.

This comes back to the point as to why this one is different than most DQ’s. It feels like a gotcha, and not just to those directly involved.
Tiny infractions, on parts found rule compliant earlier, heavily penalized on 4 out of 5 of the fastest autocross cars that finished endurance, and no one else.
I want to believe them when the organisation states that they remain convinced that the correct action was taken, that the measure they decided upon was fitting for the offense.
I want to believe you when you say that no pleasure was taken in disqualifying the teams.
However, I also think that the organizers could have tried harder to avoid any impression that all this was just to make some point, or who knows what.

Where do you draw the line though? Do all teams go thought tech inspection with spacers in their suspension to make their car wider by 5mm and then change their setup after - because its only a small change and they shouldn't be able to be DQ the team for it? When do small encroachments become the norm for competing teams?

Here is what I propose: Measure all the aerodynamic elements properly at initial scrutineering. If approved: seal the parts by putting small stickers on every single element. (In fact, FSG already does this in some locations to signify wing trailing edges that have been checked and approved.) At the end of endurance, check parts that are invisible, but that can have a large influence on performance. In the case of combustion cars: Fuel tanks and restrictors. In the case of electric cars: Energy meters.
Quick check for missing wing stickers, and done.
It’s clearer to everyone, and nobody has to worry that their previously approved, unchanged geometry is all of a sudden disapproved because of a tire that crept up a rim a bit more than usual. Or if perhaps their front tire walls have shrunk inward by 1.5mm due to decreased tire pressure after 1.5 hours in the shade of the parc fermé pit box before being measured, compared to driving in the sun on a hot track.

Thijs

This just provides a way to further bypass the rules by changing the relative components and assuming invulnerability as the part has a scrutineering seal. This could be a good option if the rules are revised to work with this system though.

Thijs

08-03-2016, 05:13 AM

This is not confirmed from what I have read here. For all I know they could have changed their VD setup which made their aerodynamics package no longer rules compliant.

No suspension or wing setup changes were made on the Delft car throughout the event. Can't speak for the other teams of course.

Why didn't the team check and triple check that they maintained rules compliance? Why push that responsibility back onto the competition organisers?

Of course they checked and double checked. Then the scrutineers checked and the team went back to have them double check as well before dynamics.
A 5mm margin was found. Sounds pretty close to how you guys approached things.

Maybe it was thought they could get away with a setup that passed tech...

There was no 'trying to get away' with anything. They were ready to chop off a piece of the wing, had initial scrutineering pointed out the necessity.
However, what seems to have happened is that the tires were a bit more mobile on the rims than expected. The fact that they had cooled down a lot since endurance by the time they were measured probably didn't help either. You can call that poor design, or poor engineering practices. I consider the newfound rule non-compliance a result of the decision of the RC to measure relative to a piece of rubber that is by definition not stationary. I bet plenty of cars have their wing sticking out too much on the left while going through a right hand corner due to tire deflection, and the other way around, while being fine a second later when they drive in a straight line again.
Why not measure relative to the rim? That's how FSG does it btw.

F1 cars do get disqualified after races if they are outside of the technical regulations.

Fair enough. Of course the main point of my post was that FS officials are not obliged to do so, although some make it sound like they had no choice.
Also, F1 wings are measured in absolute terms, not relative to a floppy piece of rubber. These measurements are far more accurate and repeatable. Also, F1 teams do actually change out noses.

As an interesting side note, concerning 'bodywork and dimensions' the F1 regulations contain this sentence:

"Furthermore, infinite precision can be assumed on certain dimensions provided it is clear that such
an assumption is not being made in order to circumvent or subvert the intention of the relevant
regulation."
source (http://www.fia.com/file/38950/download/14081?token=Nu_ymUVZ) (PDF alert), top of page 10.

Look at that, F1 takes into account the intent of the rules when considering wing tolerances.

Where do you draw the line though?

Like I said:

Check the parts mentioned in D8.24 (i.e. hard to see, large influence)
Check suspected (serious) safety issues
Introduce a wing seal system perhaps
Definitely check parts if foul play is suspected. Adding spacers to gain 5mm would check that box. Apply the harshest penalty when confirmed by all means. Willful cheating should never be tolerated.

I would be in favour of not measuring anything else. Did a team increase their camber setting, causing a wing to now be 1mm outside of it's new bounding box? I don't care. Any track width variation due to normal suspension setup changes will be absolutely tiny. No intended foul play, no measurable influence on performance, no influence on safety.

For what it's worth, obviously there has already been a line drawn since the start of FSAE, just not explicitly. It's by definition arbitrary, and not necessarily fixed. There are a hundred things that have never been checked in parc ferme. Wing size is just no longer one of them apparently. There is some merit to not explicitly defining the line, so as not to point teams to areas where they might get away with stuff. But let's not act as if there's no line in practice already.

This just provides a way to further bypass the rules by changing the relative components and assuming invulnerability as the part has a scrutineering seal. This could be a good option if the rules are revised to work with this system though.

My post was long enough already, so I didn't want to elaborate, but with a few extra provisions that take into account movable elements entering keep-out zones, I feel this can be workable solution. A seal across an interface between a movable element and a fixed element shows which elements have been moved. If an official deems it likely that such a change has affected rule compliance, this can be checked.
However, many teams don't change their wing elements, and most overall wing dimensions (among them width) will not change with wing element adjustments, so the amount of variables that needs to be checked still decreases drastically, and it gets rid of the ones that are most difficult to measure.

Thijs

Stef de Jong

08-03-2016, 05:14 AM

Hello all,

I would like to make 2 contributions to all the things that have been said already on this thread. My apologies for the long read.

For reasons I state below at 2, hereby the obvious: this is my personal opinion, etc. etc, etc.

1. About DQ’s and following the rulebook to the letter

I am utterly convinced that it is quite ease to DQ the vast majority of cars who finished Endurance at Parc Fermé based on non-conformity, if we are to DQ a team based on a 3mm too wide front wing. In my past 10 years of being involved in Delft team (as a team member, captain, alumnus and now also sponsor), I have seen cars of many different teams drive and finish dynamics with all sorts of non-compliant issues, both technical and violating other rules.

I will name some here: visibly cracked engine mounts, cars that made really a lot of noise during the endurance, cars with really remarkable/questionable fuel usage, cars that were not held to the minimum speed rule, prioritizing the 2nd driver lane over the 1st driver lane and cars that showed up too late in the queue or were allowed to drive after the end time of the event.

All of these examples have been allowed to drive and finished and were not DQ'd nor given any point penalty whatsoever after Parc Fermé. And that’s a good thing. In my opinion if there are no safety concerns, if a team passed scrutineering and did not intentionally breach rules (eg ‘cheat’) to gain performance advantages after scrutineering ANY team should be allowed to finish and compete.

I can remember everyone cheering really loud when the first ever Indian team in I believe it was 2008 finished an Endurance race at the end of the Sunday, and the amazing party afterwards when they were really really having a blast at the party afterwards. Were they really rule compliant if one was to rescrutineer during Parc Fermé? And does it really matter? There is a reason the rulebook clearly states what is to be checked at Parc Fermé (and what is not) and when a DQ applies (and when it is open for judgement). And what about 'Intent of the Rule' ?

Thus, the fact that now all of the sudden some (all of them with top performance at the event) teams have been DQ’d is highly irregular and as such, it is not strange that people hint on alterior motives (e.g. the ‘Brexit rule’). I would like to add here that at least 2 key FSUK organization members openly have conveyed the message that they are happy to see a C car win again this year… This brings me to my second and more important point.

2. About the learning curve, professionalism and spirit of the competition

It is a fact we have to deal with that some teams nowadays surpass most competitions (and even most companies) in the level of organization, professionalism and fanatism. I realize that the organization of the competitions is highly dependent on volunteers; people who have a job and a life. I respect the fact that they are willing to give up so much time to make this happen, just as the team members and some alumni do (and some sponsors even too).

However, for too long we have had all sorts of major concerns that teams by themselves have tried to bring to the table. Think about the ‘FSUK Safety Concerns’ Facebook page started by one brave Zurich alumnus (still the first thing you see when entering FSUK in Facbook…), non-compliant track layouts, incompetent marshalls, cones/OC's unaccounted for even though on video, sudden fire trucks on the track, etc. Teams themselves, and even alumni such as myself, have a very large barrier to provide feedback on these points to competitions, since they would not like to penalize the future team(s). This however impedes a constructive dialogue, especially in the case of competitions like FSUK, where the amount of FS alumni involved in the organization is substantially lower than for instance at FSG and FSA.

FSUK first of all should start to realize the heart and soul that goes into making these racing cars. And all competition organizations should realize that for most teams less than 10% of the members continue to the next year. It is no F3, F-Ford or what have you where there is a commercial aspect involved, or where teams have the same consistency for years and years.

For FSUK my advice would be to really start bringing in alumni who have participated as a teammember not too long ago in key decision making positions to counterweight the industry ‘experts’, or at least be open to start this constructive dialogue to keep the top teams coming to the UK. Because yes, I thoroughly enjoyed FSUK in my days and understand from this year's Delft team they also had a great, great weekend, apart from the final hours.

I sincerely hope we can have both a competition with a fierce competition on the track AND the helpfullness and 'feeling' that makes FS/FSAE so unique. This feeling only alunni truly understand. I have had so much fun and learned so much in battling Stuttgart back in the days (hi Bemo!) and all our team members learned so much in fixing our car and the numerous uprights, drive shafts, brake pedals and steering columns of even our most fierce competitors, just as other teams help each other, and us, in times of need.

The only way for organizations to cultivate exactly this type of a competition, a competition that makes FS unique, is to have the same level of execution, together with the human side when it comes to dealing out penalties and DQ's. FS really is not F1, and really should not become even worse.

Kind regards,

Stef de Jong

JasperC

08-03-2016, 06:00 AM

I have to say I'm pleasantly surprised by the transparency shown by the organisers. Thank you to the IMechE and to Michael Royce for clarifying their side of the story.

I think the logic remains flawed in one particular point: the organisers are admitting that parc fermé inspection may be more rigorous than initial inspection. This way of dealing with inspection is not constructive and lacks proactivity. In my limited industry experience as an engineer, this way of working would be labelled poor engineering practice and would not be accepted at all by my employer. Therefore I believe this is a wrong message to students.

I know all the organisers are putting in a lot of effort to make this competition happen just for the students, I know you want the students to compete. So a more proactive conduct would seem appropriate. I realise you don't have the time nor the resources for rigorous inspections on every car. But at least one of the involved teams explicitly asked for a closer look at their aero devices prior to the dynamic events. Still, the organisers chose to save their best measuring abilities until after endurance, and for that they should be ashamed.

Cheers,
Jasper

P.S. Like all of my comments in this thread, this reflects my own opinion and not the Delft team's. I'm not actively involved with the team any more.

Dunk Mckay

08-03-2016, 08:00 AM

Mr Royce, I have a question for you.

I have been considering volunteering as a design judge for FSUK. My thoughts are, that I have a few issues with the way design judging is done (or at the very least how it is perceived to be done), so I thought I'd make it my mission to effect change from within, rather than simply complaining about it.

My question is: If I decide that I want to prioritise effecting change to the rules, would starting out as a design judge also be the right action to take, or is there a better way to edge my way towards a rules committee position? Or do I simply stand no chance of ever having any influence?

I'm sure Z will have something to say about 'wasting my time' and 'becoming another gear in the machine', but I'm not prepared to just sit around arguing on the internet. Nor am I prepared to give up hope that FSUK (and the FSAE rules) can be made better.

Kevin Hayward

08-04-2016, 02:06 AM

Thijs (and others),

Just to be clear I am not a champion of the rules in the current state, nor am I convinced that the penalty given to Delft was appropriate. I have a problem with the assumption that the actions of the scrutineers and organisers was motivated by a desire to punish or change the result, or that they act from a place of incompetence. I often do not agree with their decisions, but I think it is arrogant and often incorrect to assume that I, other faculty advisers, or students are inherently more competent at making the required decisions. Having dealt with many it is also worth noting that they have differing opinions. For every official that would be happy to see a combustion car win there are plenty that would have preferred an electric win.

There has been the implication that the organisers lack empathy towards the students. I would humbly suggest that this goes both ways, although I admit is is much harder for the aggrieved to behave in this manner. I would also suggest that many of the organisers may have done what they did with heavy hearts, even if they stand by their decision.

I quoted the rules to respond to the doubt as to whether the scrutineers had a right to inspect the cars post event for any system apart from the powertrain. The rules clearly show that it is permitted, and there is also plenty of precedent at other competitions. Given that the rules governing aerodynamic devices has been a hot topic lately I am not at all surprised that there were post event checks of these systems, and would expect that we will see more of the same.

Furthermore with respect to your definition of "mechanical integrity" I think an equally valid definition (as per dictionaries) would be "The machine is in a sound, unimpaired, or perfect condition". The rules act as a standard by which the condition of the machine is compared. If it had been leaning towards safety only I think "Structural Integrity" would have been a better term. This is a tough one as it is one of many terms that lacks clear definition in the rules. I agree that the primary concern of D1.1 is safety, but I do not think that discounts its application in this case.

As to the problems with an arbitrary points deduction (apart from the full points) is that it becomes incredibly difficult to be consistent. Maybe Delft gets passed, but the other teams are still DQ'd. What do we do here 3mm over is 50 points, 5mm over is 100points, 10mm over is a DQ? It also leads to teams making a decision between maintaining compliance vs. the risk of a penalty. Maybe a team on the limit decides to save the time modifying a component that is 3mm over so that they do not miss their slot in endurance, knowing that the points penalty for non-compliance is better than the 2 minute time penalty. This is an absolute minefield.

I agree that just about any car that had finished endurance could have been found to be non-compliant. Stuttgart was sounding pretty loud out there for instance. My own team would have likely breached an aero dimension. Given the focus put on the fastest teams, such as scheduling the whole day around their endurance run, I don't think anybody should be surprised that they receive more attention with regards to post event scrutineering. However, please note that other cars outside of the top 5 were checked for various items.

...

I also want to be crystal clear while I have had some involvement with competition organisation, tech inspection, and marshaling I have spent the vast majority of my FSAE time as either a competitor or a faculty adviser (which is like a grumpier version of a student, who sleeps a little more). My heart is with the guys at Delft and the other DQ'd teams, and understand the devastation and frustration they are feeling as a result of the decision. If we think along the same lines as Aristotle they have the best appeal to Pathos. I might even be convinced that they have the best appeal to Ethos, but the organisers hold Logos, and in this case I believe it is the stronger argument.

Kind Regards,

Kev

Thijs

08-04-2016, 10:13 AM

Kevin,

Thank you for your response.

About D1.1: I'm not a native speaker, so I won't further argue the subtleties of the meaning of mechanical integrity, you're probably right.
However, the main reason I think it doesn't apply here (at the risk of repeating myself), is that at no point does this rule suggest that it should be taken as a basis for retroactively disqualifying a team.
Disqualification is discussed, but specifically only in the context where a car has been pulled off the endurance track, and when it is unable to rejoin, or when officials deem it unfit to do so, at which point DQ is the only logical outcome since you're not allowed to repair a car by the side of the track.
The fact the other events are specifically not mentioned is telling.

I tried to comprehensively argue the logos side as well, because I feel that even there, the organizers aren't on solid ground, to the extent that retroactive DQ's are not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the rules we discussed. Even in D8.24, they are only implied, although I do believe all officials and teams understand this rule to mean that a DQ will follow in case rule non-compliance is found in the parts mentioned.

A3.10 is an important rule for obvious reasons. Without it, officials would not be able to act on anything that isn’t explicitly mentioned in the rules.
However, as soon as it is invoked (which is the case: The sentence ‘if any rule non-compliance is found after a dynamic event, the car will be disqualified from that event’ is not in the rules), I feel officials are morally obliged to follow the intent of the rules, and the spirit of the competition as closely as possible.
Kevin, I agree that ‘spirit of the competition’ arguments are tricky. I disagree that they are inherently flawed, to the extent that there must be some common ground that everyone can agree on, such as that we should pursue basic rules of fairness and good engineering practices. Flawed or not, reasoning along lines of spirit and intent is all we can do when making decisions on matters not explicitly covered in the rules. With that, the officials inevitably move away from pure logos.
The implied argument that ‘the officials acted according to the rules, because A3.10’ (giving them the right to “interpret or modify the competition rules at any time and in any manner”) is a cop-out and circular reasoning. It cannot be a full, proper justification for a decision by itself. It’s only a starting point for a justification.

If a team cheated, otherwise gained any advantage or compromised safety, I consider it fully in the spirit of competing fairly and safely to penalize that, like I clearly said earlier.
That was not the case here. It must be (and must have been) obvious to everyone involved that a car does not become faster when an outer tire wall moves 1.5mm towards the center of the car, nor that this migration was the (intended or otherwise) consequence of any action of the team, other than driving the car.
Nonetheless, the officials, as a group chose to interpret a specific rule in an extreme way, to take it to a conclusion not mentioned in the rules, but only hinted at in other rules, about other parts, in different contexts.

This, even though the rule in question is based on an inherently poorly defined measurement method, relative to a soft, moving part, which is very hard to defend as being in accordance with good engineering practices.
This, even though the same rule A3.10 also gives them full authority to take into account the actual meaning of the measurement results they had gathered, in deciding whether to hand out any penalty, or even the most severe one possible.

I consider that poor judgment. Btw, I understand that it took a heated discussion for the organization to come to the decision to deny the appeals that were made, so apparently there were officials too who agree that this is not the clear cut case the somewhat clinical statement from the organization suggests it is.

For what it’s worth, I don’t mean T9.2.1b should be disregarded (as long as it's in the rule book at least). Rather, I’m convinced that because of the poor way it’s defined, it is unworkable without using common sense. In no way were the officials forced by the rules to ignore common sense. They chose to do so.

I often do not agree with their decisions, but I think it is arrogant and often incorrect to assume that I, other faculty advisers, or students are inherently more competent at making the required decisions.

I would not suggest that the organizers are less competent at making decisions, let alone inherently so. I do think they can make mistakes, which I don't think is a very controversial statement.

In fact I think very few would consider officials inherently incompetent at making decisions, which might explain why some have suggested cynicism rather than incompetence as a possible explanation.
This reaction is unfortunate, but predictable as well. This predictability makes it even harder to understand why this decision was first made, and later (and still) defended.
Above anyone else, this decision has damaged FSUK as an organisation. If nothing else, they would have served themselves better by avoiding the controversy that would inevitably follow this whole ordeal.

Mr Royce,

Although I obviously strongly disagree with what you have defended as a good decision, I do appreciate and respect the fact that you come to this forum to present your view on this issue. I also hope that you will respond to the points I have made in my earlier posts.

Thijs

08-05-2016, 09:37 PM

Dunk,

My main point is that I would be happy to redraft the whole Rule Book, but only on the condition that my work was then considered by all the "stakeholders", namely the Teams, then criticised, argued about, reworked, over and over again..., until eventually a significant majority (say 2/3?) of the Teams agreed on the wording and implemented it. That would make it "worth the time".

Now what is that phrase again...? Oh, yes, "... a democratic process"!

BTW, if you go ahead with "becoming another gear in the machine", then you might find this linked book very useful in teaching you the essential skills required of a good RC member.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Prince-Penguin-Classics-Niccolo-Machiavelli/dp/0140449159

(Honestly, it spells out all you will need to know! :D)
~o0o~

Getting back to the DQs.

I wonder what the result would have been if, after the post-Enduro scrutineering and a public announcement of "Team X's wing was compliant at initial scrutineering, but is now found to be 3 mm wider than tyre outside dimensions...", all the other Teams attending the competition were required to vote on:

"Team X is to be: (tick one box only)
1. Disqualified from the whole competition for their heinous crime.
2. Deducted all points from Enduro/Effcy.
3. Penalized [?] points.
4. Lambasted for cutting it so fine with such a rubbery dimension.
5. Applauded for building such a fast car."

My experience of sporting events is that when one player thoroughly thrashes all the other competitors, but then has a slight wardrobe malfunction post-event, then most other competitors readily acknowledge the superiority of that winner (giving a 5 above), but are also perhaps a little relieved at the human-ness of the winner with their wardrobe malfunction (giving a 4 above).

What would you (ie. other competitor) have voted?

Z

08-07-2016, 07:21 AM

I've read through the posts here, it seems there is a big difference in opinions. Which is ok.

However what if we think about the years to come? What's next?
I can just imagine the conversations after the endurance.

FSUK: "Sorry team, you're DQ'd."
Team:"What? Why?"
FSUK: "Because after a more rigorous level of inspection we've found a bolt which shows 1.5 thread (instead of 2) sticking out from the locknut. And as you know rules are rules and you are responsible for compliance at all times..."
or
FSUK: "Because after a more rigorous level of inspection your shoulder harness is at 20.1 degrees below the horizontal. And as you know rules are rules and you are responsible for compliance at all times..."
or
FSUK: "Because after a more rigorous level of inspection the school name is 49.8 mm high and not the required 50mm. And as you know rules are rules and you are responsible for compliance at all times..."

I can go on with the examples. And the FSUK organization will have no other choice but to disqualify these teams, because they have set a precedent this year and according to their official statement it's not fair towards other teams not to do so.

Is this really the direction that FSUK is heading towards? I truely hope it's not.
If so, it will be very difficult for some teams to find a reason to come back to FSUK in the years to come. Especially the ones that will likely to be in the top 10 and be subject to a more rigorous level of inspection.

best regards,
Miki Hegedus
Faculty Advisor Formula Student Team Delft

Pat Clarke

08-07-2016, 02:28 PM

Miki,

Getting bitter and twisted doesnt help.
Just dont go to Silverstone any more!

Pat

Swiftus

08-07-2016, 06:36 PM

...Just dont go to Silverstone any more!

Pat

Pat - I am unsure if this was serious or sarcasm, but it could taken in two very distinct and opposite interpretations if you look at Delft's past performance at the UK competition. In short, either 'feel accomplished and move on' OR 'good riddance'. The optics are unclear which wouldn't be the case in a different media.

As you are well familiar - and this is going from my memory so feel free to correct me - eDelft (the electric era for Delft) has done amazing in its 6? years, especially at the UK competition.

IIRC, they placed as follows in previous competitions:
̶
̶2̶0̶1̶1̶ ̶-̶ ̶2̶n̶d̶?̶ ̶M̶a̶y̶b̶e̶ ̶3̶r̶d̶ ̶>̶ ̶S̶t̶u̶t̶t̶g̶a̶r̶t̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶b̶u̶s̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶1̶s̶t̶
̶2̶0̶1̶2̶ ̶-̶ ̶1̶s̶t̶
̶2̶0̶1̶3̶ ̶-̶ ̶2̶n̶d̶ ̶>̶ ̶A̶M̶Z̶ ̶1̶s̶t̶
̶2̶0̶1̶4̶ ̶-̶ ̶2̶n̶d̶ ̶>̶ ̶A̶M̶Z̶ ̶1̶s̶t̶
2015 - 1st

EDIT: Completely wrong with the placing above. Check out Julian's post below for Delft's history at FSUK.

JulianH

08-07-2016, 10:51 PM

Jay,

you are right, that Delft was amazing at FS UK, but your memory is shockingly bad ;)

In 2011, there was a separate Electric class, which Delft won.
2012, they placed 2nd behind Chalmers when they had the upset of the century.
In 2013, we actually won, but Delft had a DNF in Endurance and placed somewhere outside of Top 10
Contrary, we had a bad Endurance in 2014, placed only fourth, when Delft won.
2015 they actually did win in a landslide after Zurich decided to start the "let's overshoot the power limit in FS UK Endurance" streak (2 years and running...)

But in all seriousness:
Miki, if you start to make it a "thing", there will be a lot of Top-Teams following Delft in a FS-Brexit to make UK the next Italy - boycotted by all the fast guys...

Swiftus

08-07-2016, 11:43 PM

Jay,

you are right, that Delft was amazing at FS UK, but your memory is shockingly bad ;)...

Hehehe - 1 for 5 correct on my part. That's approaching a perfect record in my book! Thanks for the actual results Julian! In any case, my point was they are essentially always on or near the podium. A recurring 'top team'.

Thijs

08-08-2016, 03:38 AM

Yup, we took our sweet time to actually win overall, but we were at least the picture of consistency in always being pretty close :)

2007 - 2nd
2008 - 2nd
2009 - 2nd
2010 - Finally on track to winning overall... until a starter relay failure during driver change --> DNF

Bemo

08-08-2016, 05:33 AM

I just wanted to give a short summary of the re-inspection at FS Austria last week. First of all there was not a single DQ. I think, we did a very similar re-inspection like they did at FS UK though (we measured the aero packages, the restrictors and checked brake overtravel switches).

Maybe the teams were a bit more careful about this after the story of FSUK as we didn't have any really close cases. All in all it went fine without big discussions as it happened as you would wish. You measure it, see it's fine and wish the team a nice award ceremony and after party.

But of course we also discussed how to deal with it, if something similar happens. We came to the conclusion that there are several rules which state that something is prohibited but don't state what the consequence of an infringement is (as Miki already pointed out). For example the rules also say that during driver change no works on the car are allowed except the specified examples. But there is no definition of a consequence given. So we came to the conclusion that the organisers should give a penalty they deem appropriate to the severety of the infringement.

We decided that the rules can be interpreted in the way that for minor violations, which didn't cause any dangerous situations or which didn't give the teams huge performance advantages, it would be possible to give time penalties. This is still not an ideal situation as it may lead to situations in which it appears that penalties are given just by the mood of the officials. But it opens the possibility to penalize also minor infringements but not directly DQ the team.

Thijs

08-08-2016, 08:00 AM

Thanks for the insight Bemo.
That sounds like a fair way of approaching these situations.

JulianH

08-08-2016, 08:10 AM

Bemo,

out of curiosity:
What would have been the penalities for the mentioned "minor infringements"?
I saw that TU Fast Munich seem to have gotten a Time Penalty (23:24 +3*2 = 23:30; but they are ranked with a 23:50) in Endurance.
I never saw a 20seconds penalty in FS (only know the 120 seconds for missing your slot).
Were they the "first to experience" the new penalty system?

Thanks
Julian

Thijs

08-08-2016, 09:22 AM

Miki,

Getting bitter and twisted doesnt help.
Just dont go to Silverstone any more!

Pat

Pat,

It may sound hyperbolic, but percentagewise 49.8mm rather than 50mm for school name height is a greater error than 3mm out of 1426 for the distance between the outer walls of your front tires.
It is also easier to measure to that precision and it has about as much influence on track speed.

Unfortunately there have been no further responses from mr Royce or other officials to several direct points (although I still look forward to those), but you´ve now heard both sides of the story.
I´m curious to hear what you think about how the situation was handled.

Thijs

Pat Clarke

08-08-2016, 10:28 AM

Thijs,

I wasn't there, so it is improper for me to have an opinion and I haven't really heard 'both sides of the story' (you know the old saying about three sides to every story?).
I don't know all the details but I do know it is the responsibility for the team to keep their car compliant for the entire event, so Mr Royce does have a valid point.

Whether the penalty fits the crime? I just don't know but it highlights yet another anomaly in the Rule book.

You know I have been a 'friend of the team' for many years, so I feel bad for you guys. But it is history now and nothing will change that.
Remember, FS/FSAE is primarily an educational exercise, and anyone who knows the story will have learned a lot, some of those lessons not what was intended!

Me? I would have castrated the entire team, cut their right hands off and sold their womenfolk into slavery. But then I am a bastard ;-)

Seriously, it was just Formula Student not the end of the world, so my suggestion would be to get over it and learn the many lessons that are there to be learned.
Come talk to me in Pat's Corner about it later this week, I might have more to say ;-)

Pat

Thijs

08-08-2016, 10:42 AM

Pat,

Fair enough. And don't worry, I won't write another essay about how castration isn't in the rule book.

I'm not looking to change history btw. I'm just looking for a sign that the FSUK organization has learned lessons from this as well.

I'm sure we'll run into each other at some point over the next week, and enjoy FSG.

Thijs

mech5496

08-10-2016, 02:32 PM

Speaking of rules (and now that the season for my team is over), I wonder how many of the e-teams have a legal rear wing. In the events we participated this year I counted almost zero.

Just to be clear, I refer to rule EV4.12.6, stating that "the TSAL must be clearly visible from every horizontal direction, except small angles which are covered by the main roll hoop, even in very bright sunlight". To me, this means that the rear wing and the endplates should be either lower than the TSAL, or transparent. If a team elects to go through tech with the DRS activated so it can pass, then they should run with the DRS activated at all times; and even like this, the endplates would be illegal. We chose not to officially protest since we do not think it fits the FS ethos, but I believe it is something that should be brought to table for 2017.

WE NEED CLEAR RULES.

JulianH

08-10-2016, 02:42 PM

Harry,
in this point, you are not correct.

There was a clear stated Rules clarification on this back in 2012 (with my awesome CAD pictures ;)), that the visibility is defined by a person standing something like 2m around the car.
At FSG 2013 they acutally checked that with a stick, so the rear wings should be all legal.

But fully agree, that we need clear rules.

mech5496

08-10-2016, 02:50 PM

Kevin Hayward

08-10-2016, 06:57 PM

1.6m height, 3m away, the famous "visibility cone" ;) This is still not "every horizontal direction", as "horizontal" would be "at the height of the TSAL" to my understanding. Still, the point was not to protest over anything rather than emphasizing that the rulebook needs a refresh. Kev had started a good effort a couple of years back, and I was also trying to assist on i, but went down the drain. Have to look if I can find this draft somewhere...

Unfortunately Harry apart from yourself there was little interest from this community in making a decent effort to discuss and present clarifications to the rules. It is telling that I had to quote from a number of different sections to provide an outline as simple as the judges have the right to technical inspection at any point, and as mentioned there is almost no mention of penalties for finding faults.

Like a poorly maintained house once it was reasonably coherent and fit for purpose, but as the years have progressed there have been few structural repairs and too many layers of paint added without proper surface preparation. I am still keen to be involved with putting together an alternative set, but am mindful that it is a job that requires a number of people to do it justice.

Kev

Dunk Mckay

08-11-2016, 02:21 AM

I found that thread after the fact. Was sad to see it had become defunct. Would be happy to help revive it. Or start a new attempt.

Going a little off topic now, but on the subject of rules, are there many/any teams that make use of the AF section?
It 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.
Yes, I realise it's about having the choice, the right to make good or bad decisions, and to justify them. But with the time and resource constraints of event organisers (as a tenuous link to what has been discussed here) it's just one extra complication that isn't needed. 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.

The rules should be half the length they are, and that's where I would start. I'd also like to see separate EC and C car rule books. The common sections would stay the same as they are now. But having whole sections, plus various paragraphs dotted around, that aren't relevant to your class can be really frustrating.

With every new rules set, I find myself creating my own custom version of the rules, with the non-applicable sections cut-out. By doing this I am able to turn a 183 page document into a 53 page document.
Admittedly those 53 pages are just the technical rules; I don't bother with 22 pages of admin regs, or the 51 pages of event regulations. Add those back in and it's 126 pages, but that still means there's 57 pages (31% !!) worth of rules, that are simply not applicable to many teams. And that's without re-writing them to simplify and make more efficient.

Technical requirements for all cars is 55 pages, a target amount should be less than 30, 25 for a stretch target.

Anyway, rant over. Sorry for going a little off topic.

mech5496

08-11-2016, 09:55 AM

Just FYI, here's the thread I was referring to. Would love to see more people involved in this.

http://www.fsae.com/forums/showthread.php?11827-Rules-Reduction-Recommendations

BlackholeZ

08-15-2016, 07:01 PM

Speaking as someone back in school after being involved in the automotive motorsports industry, aviation industry, and unmanned engineering, this whole situation is pretty disappointing. The point of FSAE, FSUK, etc is to help students learn and encourage them in their future careers as engineers. The point is NOT to browbeat them with the rulebook and teach them that engineering is full of pedants that think they know better than everyone else.

Keep in mind that these students have spent the better part of a year devoting their lives to building these cars for 2 days of competition. They have sacrificed everything to get to competition. Showing up and performing well but having it all thrown away over 2mm measured to a flexible surface is disgusting. Yes there is a rulebook for a reason, but asking an engineer to build in a margin of safety for "rules interpretation" is completely counter to what it means to be an engineer. I feel for the volunteers, as their jobs are made very difficult by the rulebook.

Jay Lawrence

08-15-2016, 11:26 PM

^

It's a weird mix. In my situation, it was very much a case of 'elders' having no clue about what you'd done or how to do it themselves, but also succumbing to the innate desire that some little people have of trying to appear superior in all situations. After I finished up, it was great to see ex-FSAE people coming on board and bringing in some more credibility.

It's easy for senior people to say 'oh it's just a life lesson' etc., because it's easy to forget that at that point in time you've just forgone sleep/partners/grades/etc. in order to put forth your best effort, only to have it taken away by someone being petty. Sad

Michael Royce

08-19-2016, 10:12 AM

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