2011 FSAE Rule Book

[RobbyObby]

First off, please let me know if this post belongs somewhere else.

I have been looking around for ages but have not found any update on the timeline for the release of the 2011 rulebook. I believe the 2010 rulebook was released in late August last year so im not expecting it quite yet, but I was hoping someone can point me to where and/or when the new rulebook will be released? I believe there was some discussion around shortening the rule book (correct me if im wrong) so this may push back the release.
Again any update would be appreciated!

[RobbyObby]

First off, please let me know if this post belongs somewhere else.

I have been looking around for ages but have not found any update on the timeline for the release of the 2011 rulebook. I believe the 2010 rulebook was released in late August last year so im not expecting it quite yet, but I was hoping someone can point me to where and/or when the new rulebook will be released? I believe there was some discussion around shortening the rule book (correct me if im wrong) so this may push back the release.
Again any update would be appreciated!

[thewoundedsoldier]

Last year it was released August 31. It should first post to the FormulaSAE page on the SAE International website, under "Rules and Important Documents".

This is the worst time of the year--having to sit on designs hoping that no major change comes along and wipes out everything you've done all summer. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[IronMike]

I was notified yesterday by FSAE Rules that the 2011 Rules will be released September 1st. +1 on the too late in the year opinion

[BMH]

Are there any big rule changes/additions that ya'll are aware of that could possibly see its way in the 2011 rule book?

[HoggyN]

IIRC at FSUK they mentioned possible changes to the template rules (smaller templates) and minimum distances from Percy's hip point to the front face of the pedals.

That last one could be a problem for some cars.

[vandit]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BMH:
Are there any big rule changes/additions that ya'll are aware of that could possibly see its way in the 2011 rule book? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


During 2010 FSG event before and after the Fire incident of Regensburg's car there were long discussions among Scrutineers regarding stricter rules for Fuel tank, Fuel inlet pipe and Firewall. I am not sure whether they can bring that into effect for 2011 in such a short notice.

Pat also announced that it could be possible in the future that they reduce points from Dynamic events and increase in Static events but then he and Steve both said that it is still subjected to further discussions.

[RenM]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by vandit:
Pat also announced that it could be possible in the future that they reduce points from Dynamic events and increase in Static events but then he and Steve both said that it is still subjected to further discussions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

they effectively did that already by increasing Tmax in Endurance from 1.33 to 1.45 and changing the fuel scoring in the 2010 rules.

[Mike Cook]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RenM:


they effectively did that already by increasing Tmax in Endurance from 1.33 to 1.45 in the 2010 rules. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True. I was watching the online live video from Formula student and steve fox said that they would probably reduce accel and autocross by 25 points each and increase design by 50.

He also said that we wanted to make the front foot template smaller but that probably wouldn't happen. The main top down cockpit template would probably get smaller though.

[stratplayer]

So it's September 1st, and as of 11am, there are still no rules posted. I really hope they come out today.

[BMH]

Same here!

[MrTim]

Where are the rules?
Perhaps this year there will be none...

[Dsenechal]

Would be nice to see them today...

[RobbyObby]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrTim:
Where are the rules?
Perhaps this year there will be none... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh the possibilities... Im drooling at the thought.

[Luniz]

How many points are deductet from the SAE's total event score per day of late submission of the new rule book? http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[t21jj]

The rules are now posted.

[Mike Cook]

Sweet Baby Jesus. Christmas has come early.

[RANeff]

Interesting aero rule change...

[Nice Vans]

Woo hoo I agree with Mike! You think you've seen big wings in the past...

[RobbyObby]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RanE5-CSU:
Interesting aero rule change... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can envision some interesting diffuser concepts coming!

"B6.2 Ground Clearance
There is no minimum ground clearance requirement. However, teams are reminded that under Rule D1.1.2 any vehicle condition which could, among other things, “... compromise the track surface” is a valid reason for exclusion from an event. Any vehicle contact that creates a hazardous condition or which could damage either the track surface or the timing system is cause for declaring a vehicle DQ."

This oughta make for some interesting autocross and endurance running!

[RANeff]

Indeed, the ground clearance change is very interesting as well.

[EHog]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RanE5-CSU:
Interesting aero rule change... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Posted at 6:40pm.


I happened to notice the change at 11am so we have a 7hr 40minute design lead on you http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

[RobbyObby]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nice Vans:
Woo hoo I agree with Mike! You think you've seen big wings in the past... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Formula A-Mod anyone?

[RANeff]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EHog:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RanE5-CSU:
Interesting aero rule change... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Posted at 6:40pm.


I happened to notice the change at 11am so we have a 7hr 40minute design lead on you http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ha well, we arent normally an aero team... I think the chassis changes are a big deal too, bigger than I may realize right now http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[JasperC]

Seems like the Rules Committee are reading this forum too. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif There was a topic on using a welded magnesium frame; now this is prohibited. The Thai team testing their impact annuator on their car with a driver in it lead to a discussion here where someone suggested providing a standard IA; now it is announced that this will indeed will be done.

Interesting brake pedal rule too, I know which team is going to have a titanium brake pedal next year.

The changes in the ground clearance rule and aero rule seem to increase the potential of diffusers a lot. Will be interesting to see if there will be teams who are really capable of gaining a big advantage with a well-developed diffuser.

Overall I see some nice changes and must say the Rules Committee did a good job.

Cheers,
Jasper Coosemans

Chief Drivetrain 2009-2010
DUT Racing Team (Delft University of Technology)

[wagemd]

Mmmmmm skirts http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Not sure what I make of them yet, but the "Alternate Frame Rules" (Along with their corresponding exclusions) are interesting indeed.

Also, several of the proposed changes look like they are moving in the right direction... They encouraged opinions on the proposed changes, I will certainly email them.

[Brian McGreevy]

Yeah, those Alternate Frame rules are interesting. Obviously targeted at monocoques, but you might be able to do some interesting things with with a space frame under those rules, too.

[EHog]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wagemd:
Mmmmmm skirts http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You had better believe it.

[Pennyman]

They've certainly made up for the templates with this rule set.

I remember hearing somewhere "Our simulation told us to build a wing, and build a formula car to support it."

Ye with the most windtunnel time... no I won't go there. See you at MIS.

[spierson]

A little FYI they just slipped in there:

"Comment on Disabled Cars – The organizers and the Rules Committee remind teams that cars disabled on course must be removed as quickly as possible. A variety of tools may be used to move disabled cars including quick jacks, dollies of different types, tow ropes and occasionally even boards. We expect cars to be strong enough to be easily moved without damage. Speed is important in clearing the course and although the course crew exercises due care, parts of a vehicle can be damaged during removal. The organizers are not responsible for damage that occurs when moving disabled vehicles. Removal/recovery workers will jack, lift or tow the car at whatever points they find easiest to access. Accordingly, we advise teams to consider the strength and location of all obvious jacking, lifting and towing points during the design process."

[Mdooge]

So what is this "waste engine heat recovery allowed" rule?

My interpretation of B8.1.1:

Hybrid powertrains are prohibited. Note: You can use a hybrid.

eh?

[wagemd]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mdooge:
So what is this "waste engine heat recovery allowed" rule?

My interpretation of B8.1.1:

Hybrid powertrains are prohibited. Note: You can use a hybrid.

eh? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I think they're saying you cant use hybrid technology that uses STORED energy. Look up turbo-compounding for grins...

[Mdooge]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wagemd:

No, I think they're saying you cant use hybrid technology that uses STORED energy. Look up turbo-compounding for grins... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Hmm.. no need to go too far into this as I'm pretty sure I understand their intent anyways, but given that they don't limit hybrids to ONLY those which use stored energy, just hybrids SUCH AS those, it sounds like "the method of conversion is not limited to the four-stroke cycle" would be allowing a "hybrid."

[Wesley]

Better wear shin guards to the next competition. Seems that the People-Feet Anklechoppers (TM) will be out in full force.

Now I really wish I was back in school. This year will be aerodynamically epic.

[Brian Barnhill]

So no ones mentioned the safety gear requirement changes yet...

ONLY SA rated helmets now, and suits must be multi-layer 3.2/5 or higher now.

I know this makes almost all our safety gear illegal.

[AxelRipper]

A few other things noted: rules for DI, and high pressure hydraulics. I could see a team running DI, bu why hydraulics? some sort of pressurized cannister KERS and AWD?

[J. Vinella]

Skirts and big'ol diffusers, it's like 1980 all over again.
Grippy days ahead, drivers start working out your necks.

[murpia]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AxelRipper:
A few other things noted: rules for DI, and high pressure hydraulics. I could see a team running DI, bu why hydraulics? some sort of pressurized cannister KERS and AWD? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Gearshifts, clutches, active diffs, all could be hydraulic.

How does 300psi compare to damper pressures with remote reservoir hoses?

Regards, Ian

[wagemd]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by J. Vinella:
Skirts and big'ol diffusers, it's like 1980 all over again.
Grippy days ahead, drivers start working out your necks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All we need is active aero and full ground effects and we're ready to go!

I can foresee building a sucker car driven off a turbine and all that free exhaust flow. Its like a turbo for your undertray http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Dsenechal]

Curious as to whether design points will be awarded for a teams own impact attenuator design / taken away for using the standard that will be provided. Seems like alot of extra work to design your own, if there is no real benefit. Except maybe weight and packaging.

[RobbyObby]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wagemd:
I can foresee building a sucker car driven off a turbine and all that free exhaust flow. Its like a turbo for your undertray http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"B12.4 Ground Effect Devices – No power device may be used to move or remove air from under the vehicle except fans designed exclusively for cooling. Power ground effects are prohibited."

As long as you can prove its for cooling! Wouldnt that be somethin. Exhaust gas gets fed into a turbo linked up to the cooling fan under the car. 3 birds with one stone - turbo power, uber cooling, and massive aero. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[AxelRipper]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dsenechal:
Curious as to whether design points will be awarded for a teams own impact attenuator design / taken away for using the standard that will be provided. Seems like alot of extra work to design your own, if there is no real benefit. Except maybe weight and packaging. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just figured that i'd throw in that we have an IA rig for our schools crash sled. I'm sure we'll have more information on that coming sometime.

[woodsy96]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brian Barnhill:
So no ones mentioned the safety gear requirement changes yet...

ONLY SA rated helmets now, and suits must be multi-layer 3.2/5 or higher now.

I know this makes almost all our safety gear illegal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I saw that. It makes $2400 worth of race suits bought 3 years ago useless after this year. We might have a word with the manufacturer and see if we can get an extra layer sewn in.

[Pete Marsh]

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, or lost or loose body panels, 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.

So, does this still mean you can't touch the track? like the old rule, that specifically said not to touch the track.
ie, is a purpose designed slide with teflon edge and curved leading edge bodywork?

Pete

[Mike Cook]

I think the idea of dragging bodywork, is that it is a potential hazard because it is probably going to fly off and hit someone.

[Scott Wordley]

Those changes are awesome...

Given the greater package space for wings we could probably add 30-50% downforce for a similar drag. And thats before we even get to the diffusers.

At the increased efficiency levels this plan area increase will bring, our point sims seem to be saying just keep adding as much wing as you can carry, inspite of drag and weight penalties.

Wings may yet become as obligatory as single cylinder engines in the near future?

Lucky we will have both... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[jerry_tung]

minimum wheelbase may be reduced to 1400mm in 2012, I want to see more cars with side mounted engines!

[L B0MB]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Scott Wordley:
Wings may yet become as obligatory as single cylinder engines in the near future?

Lucky we will have both... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ooh another team switching to a single cylinder hey???

BTW well done at FSUK!

[Ben Beacock]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by woodsy96:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brian Barnhill:
So no ones mentioned the safety gear requirement changes yet...

ONLY SA rated helmets now, and suits must be multi-layer 3.2/5 or higher now.

I know this makes almost all our safety gear illegal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I saw that. It makes $2400 worth of race suits bought 3 years ago useless after this year. We might have a word with the manufacturer and see if we can get an extra layer sewn in. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I haven't RTFR.. but many race classes will let you run the single layer suits as long as you're also wearing a full set of nomex underwear.
I have an older 3.2/5 suit thats more like a snow suit. I had to wear it in a rally, 35C outside and I didn't have window nets so the windows had to be up. I was almost glad my suspension ripped to shreds about halfway into the second stage.

[oz_olly]

I quite like the look of the new functional chassis design rules. I would like to know a bit more about how those design loads were chosen. Is there any safety factor in the loads already or should the teams add safety factor to those loads. I think from the quick look I had the harness attachment point load requirement is less than the proof load test FIA spec belt attachments have to pass. Can anyone comment on this?

These new rules are much better for structures other than a space frame. The current rule that primary structure attachement points must be capable of 30kN in any direction makes things pretty difficult. I would rather see a connection between main roll hoop and primary structure that distributes the load evenly through a large number of small fasteners. Four big F off bolted joints wouldn't help your torsional stiffness too much.

[DMuusers]

No more minimum ground clearance. That rule is going to destroy some cars in Germany! Unless it's going to be amended in the FSG rules. Maybe Pat or Steve wants to share his thoughts?

[Jan_Dressler]

The rule says

However, teams are reminded that under Rule D1.1.2 any vehicle condition which could, among other things, “… compromise the track surface” is a valid reason for exclusion from an event. Any vehicle contact that creates a hazardous condition or which could damage either the track surface or the timing system is cause for declaring a vehicle DQ

I think the teams will not be allowed to set the ride height so low that frame members or things like that are constantly crashing into the track surface, which means at FSG you can't run very much lower than we already do (and as you said, if you want your car to survive, you probably don't even want to do that).
Then again, I think there will be no problems with sliding skirts or flexible / movable underbodies.

[jpusb]

Well I've never been to FSG but I can tell you, MIS' test track is worse I think.

I really like that, for the first time in a lot of time (or maybe ever? I don't know) teams will now have to find the right compromise between lowering the car but still having enough suspension travel to clear the track, and that is a new whole venue that is opened that we at FSAE have never had to think about. I like it a lot because we will see very different approaches to that in competitions.

[BeunMan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RobbyObby:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wagemd:
I can foresee building a sucker car driven off a turbine and all that free exhaust flow. Its like a turbo for your undertray http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"B12.4 Ground Effect Devices – No power device may be used to move or remove air from under the vehicle except fans designed exclusively for cooling. Power ground effects are prohibited."

As long as you can prove its for cooling! Wouldnt that be somethin. Exhaust gas gets fed into a turbo linked up to the cooling fan under the car. 3 birds with one stone - turbo power, uber cooling, and massive aero. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can remeber reading something about a Brabham car in F1 (the BT46B). I think it ran for one race and was banned afterwards.

[AxelRipper]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElectroMan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RobbyObby:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wagemd:
I can foresee building a sucker car driven off a turbine and all that free exhaust flow. Its like a turbo for your undertray http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"B12.4 Ground Effect Devices – No power device may be used to move or remove air from under the vehicle except fans designed exclusively for cooling. Power ground effects are prohibited."

As long as you can prove its for cooling! Wouldnt that be somethin. Exhaust gas gets fed into a turbo linked up to the cooling fan under the car. 3 birds with one stone - turbo power, uber cooling, and massive aero. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can remeber reading something about a Brabham car in F1 (the BT46B). I think it ran for one race and was banned afterwards. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

actually it wasn't banned per-say, they "voluntarily" didnt run it anymore. we keep jokingly discussing the idea since it is entirely possible to mount a radiator on our car to take advantage of the cool, low pressure air underneath the car. Not sure how well that would go over in tech though, even if it really is all just cooling ducting

[Lorenzo Pessa]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AxelRipper:
we keep jokingly discussing the idea since it is entirely possible to mount a radiator on our car to take advantage of the cool, low pressure air underneath the car. Not sure how well that would go over in tech though, even if it really is all just cooling ducting </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only the fan could make the difference... Something like Formula Vacuum Cleaner.
I think engine guys wouldn't be so happy.

[PatClarke]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Maybe Pat or Steve wants to share his thoughts? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mmmm, the rule hasn't actually changed much, just gone back to where it was a couple of years ago.

What has happened is the 1" 'broomstick' rule made up on the spot by Steve Daum has been thrown out.

There is still the 50mm wheel travel rule and the cars can not make ground contact so any thought of sliding skirts or other methods of sealing the car to the deck will not be permitted.

The Rules Committee will shortly issue a clarification.

Personally, I see this measurement relaxation making little difference to how the cars are set up.

I remember several shocked responses when cars were either compromised or even eliminated when they wouldn't pass over the broomstick. Problems with uneven ground surfaces etc. Those events were patently unfair and so the matter has been addressed.

So those jumping with glee thinking about some 'supersucker' cars can relax and resume normality.

Cheers

Pat

[GianVioli]

Right now we're kind of hating the new rule book. We were all ready to start building from the second we made sure the car could undergo a tech inspection without any problem. Then the new rule book lead us to change some significant aspects of the car. But now we are ready!

[BrandenC]

Wow, lets hope the rules clarification is published quickly. After reading the 2011 rules, I had thought well designed sliding skirts were not only permitted, but even encouraged through the clause about not harming the track surface or the car.

[Mike Cook]

Pat, you may have some inside information, but the ways the rules are written now certainly seems to indicate a sliding skirt is acceptable as long as we still have +- 1" travel.

[RobbyObby]

"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, or lost or loose body panels, will be a valid reason for exclusion by the official until the problem is rectified."

I dont know about you guys, but that sounds pretty definitive to me.

[cjanota]

I could make the argument that a softer rubber side skirt that occasionally skids on the ground would not compromise the track surface because, you know, tires do that.

[J. Vinella]

I would think you would want something stiff to keep in the air. That is the point of the skirt. A flappy rubber skirt would let air bleed out.

Some soft plastic that is stiff would be work well. Water-jet/cut multiple out and replace when needed.

[BMH]

I have a question in regards to the diagonal side impact bracing.

Does the diagonal side impact member have to go from a bottom corner to an upper corner (i.e. bottom joint near the knee hoop and bottom side impact member to the joint where the top side impact member meets the main roll hoop)?

The reason that I am asking is, is it permissible to use a setup where there are two diagonal side impact members oriented almost in an upside-down V shape?

Similar to as shown here (minus the vertical tube at the center):
http://www.niumotorsports.com/formula/pictures/frame%208%20left%20view.JPG

[PatClarke]

Jack,
The object of the exercise would be to keep the air out =]

But, as I said before, the rule has just reverted to where it was a couple of years ago before the 'broomstick' rule. I am sure there was no intent by the Rules Committee to 'foster' the development of ground effects.

I promise you, stuff rubbing/sliding/sweeping the track surface won't be permitted, if for no other reason than the common practice of laying timing loop cables on the track surface at some events.

Cheers

Pat

[Mike Cook]

So why are ground effects banned in the first place then? The timing wires could easily be fed over the track or a different system could be used, it happens all the time (not to mention that the tires themselves have kicked the timing wire up on a number of occasions).

SAE is a learning series.

[Demon Of Speed]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BMH:
I have a question in regards to the diagonal side impact bracing.

Does the diagonal side impact member have to go from a bottom corner to an upper corner (i.e. bottom joint near the knee hoop and bottom side impact member to the joint where the top side impact member meets the main roll hoop)?

The reason that I am asking is, is it permissible to use a setup where there are two diagonal side impact members oriented almost in an upside-down V shape?

Similar to as shown here (minus the vertical tube at the center):
http://www.niumotorsports.com/formula/pictures/frame%208%20left%20view.JPG </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would assume this should be fine. That is how our 2009-2010 car is and we had to problem with tech because of it. If anything it is stronger than what the rule minimum is.

[moose]

Well - the rules say:
"• The diagonal Side Impact Structural member must connect the upper and lower Side Impact
Structural members forward of the Main Hoop and rearward of the Front Hoop.
B3.24.4 With proper gusseting and/or triangulation, it is permissible to fabricate the Side Impact Structural
members from more than one piece of tubing."


I interpret that to say that it is ok to use two tubes to form the diagonal, but the only way to chcek that out is to email the rules committee to get it in writing if that side-impact structure is ok.

Where there is room for debate, is that the side impact rules essentially mandate the distance between the two horizontal tubes. The diagonal splits that ~ in half - making it a triangle opens it up to have some potentially larger gaps.

matt

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BMH:
I have a question in regards to the diagonal side impact bracing.

Does the diagonal side impact member have to go from a bottom corner to an upper corner (i.e. bottom joint near the knee hoop and bottom side impact member to the joint where the top side impact member meets the main roll hoop)?

The reason that I am asking is, is it permissible to use a setup where there are two diagonal side impact members oriented almost in an upside-down V shape?

Similar to as shown here (minus the vertical tube at the center):
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Kettering Admins]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Does the diagonal side impact member have to go from a bottom corner to an upper corner (i.e. bottom joint near the knee hoop and bottom side impact member to the joint where the top side impact member meets the main roll hoop)?

The reason that I am asking is, is it permissible to use a setup where there are two diagonal side impact members oriented almost in an upside-down V shape? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We have done that for the past two years without issue, however, the distances/angles are quite different than yours.
http://i731.photobucket.com/albums/ww315/phil1734/SDC10476.jpg

[Mazur]

Looks like that frame won't pass the 10'' dia. intrusion rule.

[Chris Craig]

Aslong as you dont go for the Alternate Frame Rules, should be fine.

[roepke44]

From what I understand, side skirt cars were banned as a safety issue. Once you loose the seal from the side skirts, the downforce goes away and so does your traction and off the track you go. Loosing the seal happened whenever the track wasn't flat enough, or you hit a large enough bump, etc. You can only make the seals handle so much surface irregularity. This is what I was told by someone who was around in those days.

[Mike Cook]

Clarification of Rule B6.2 “Ground Clearance”


WARRENDALE, Pa., Sept. 22, 2010

Based on some questions submitted by teams and in accordance with FSAE Rule 3.1.1, the Rules Committee is issuing the following clarification of Rule B6.2 “Ground Clearance”. The intent of eliminating the ground clearance requirement was to remove the specific 1 inch dimension and its accompanying verification checks. The Design Judges believe that eliminating this requirement allows more design freedom and presented the argument that 1 inch clearance is not necessary to limit ground contact at many locations under the car, nor does it necessarily guarantee non-contact.

As the note to Rule B6.2 makes clear, under Rule D1.1.2 contact with the track is a valid reason for disqualification from a dynamic event. This statement is being issued to make it clear that the Rule Committee and Organizers will interpret those rules collectively as requiring that all vehicles be designed so the only contact between the vehicle and the ground occurs at the tire contact patches. The tech inspectors will be examining the vehicle to confirm there is clearance between all parts of the vehicle (except tires) and the ground. Sliding skirts and other devices that by design, fabrication or as a consequence of moving, contact the track surface are not allowed. Wings also need to be designed to have clearance to the ground. Simply stated, if it’s not a tire it can’t touch the ground.

[Mike Cook]

I understand why most racing has banned skirts, but I really don't think that it poses a real risk for autocrossers. If it makes your car unpredictable, you probably shouldn't run it, or you should make it better.

[RANeff]

"If its not a tire it can't touch the ground"

Yikes, allot of teams would've be DQ'd for that at West 2010. So much for teflon skid pads to stop the chassis from hitting....

[ST]

Ground effects don't require anything to actually touch the ground although it would be practically impossible to make a skirted car that doesn't actually make contact.

Somewhere I like think Ron Tauranac is looking at FSAE cars and reminding him of the days where he was the first person to think about putting wings on an F1 car, people must've thought he was crazy!

[Dsenechal]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RanE5-CSU:
"If its not a tire it can't touch the ground"

Yikes, allot of teams would've be DQ'd for that at West 2010. So much for teflon skid pads to stop the chassis from hitting.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yea, if I recall, at Michigan, alot of cars got a little personal with the pavement where the banked corner flattened out. I know our car did, and we were at a 1 inch ground clearance. I wonder how that will be handled in 2011?? Its not like we are intentionally trying to go slap chassis, just bad track surface there.

[Ranjith]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BMH:
I have a question in regards to the diagonal side impact bracing.

Does the diagonal side impact member have to go from a bottom corner to an upper corner (i.e. bottom joint near the knee hoop and bottom side impact member to the joint where the top side impact member meets the main roll hoop)?

The reason that I am asking is, is it permissible to use a setup where there are two diagonal side impact members oriented almost in an upside-down V shape?

Similar to as shown here (minus the vertical tube at the center):
http://www.niumotorsports.com/formula/pictures/frame%208%20left%20view.JPG </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi BMH,

Even I have the same question. I just mailed the officials. We had some what similar frame to what you have mentioned. I am hereby attaching a picture of our old frame. When we went to FS Germany, at Hockenheim we faced no probem at all, but at FS Austria we faced trouble, their point was that along the X Direction, at every point we should have minimum 3 tubes and in our case, since we had only two tubes at about the mid section were both the diagonal members meets the lower side impact structure.
It is not yet clear for me, will surely update you incase if I hear something new.

http://i53.tinypic.com/15yugwo.jpg