Drivers' Leg & Foot Protection [Archive]

Dominic Venieri

11-25-2002, 01:26 PM

Copied from the official FSAE forum:

Drivers' Leg & Foot Protection
It has come to the attention of the Rules Committee that some of the cars in this year's competitions have not been in compliance with the intent of the rules relative to the protection of the driver's feet and legs.

The specific observation is that the structure supporting the front bulkhead that is specified in Rule 3.3.6.1, is less than optimum in terms of bracing and triangulation, and/or that it does not meet the intent of the rules in terms of tubing size.

The Rules Committee now recognizes that the wording of the rules on this topic is less than precise, and will attempt to clarify it for the 2004 Competition.

However, the teams need to be aware that the Rules Committee has requested the Chief Design Judge to instruct his Design Judges that adequate design of the support structure of the front bulkhead should be one of the criteria for selecting cars for the Design Event Semi-Finals.

11-15-2002
Michael Royce,
Chairman,
Rules Committee,
FSAE

www.formularpi.com (http://www.formularpi.com)

Dominic Venieri

11-25-2002, 01:26 PM

Michael Jones

11-25-2002, 05:05 PM

...was just going to copy that over.

If we pay occasional attention to SAE forums and copy all the juicy bits over here to discuss them, perhaps they'll get the idea and post them here too.

Richard Lewis

11-25-2002, 09:35 PM

So I wonder how much of this has to do with the Racecar Engineering article (Aug 2002, pp 62) and the fact that the sae is being scrutinized by an international magazine? I for one whole-heartily agree that the foot bays need to be completely triangulated...

We're about 50% complete in building our frame for 2003... and we have a fully triangulated foot bay, however, shouldn't announcements like this be made earlier in the year? I would think that most teams have finalized frame design by now, and if they haven't built them, they are in the process of it. It sure would be a piss off to have hours of labour wasted because of a late rule change.

-------------------------
UVIC Formula SAE Team
http://members.shaw.ca/drax77/UVICFSAEcar.jpg
http://fsae.uvic.ca

Charlie

11-26-2002, 01:06 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Richard Lewis:
So I wonder how much of this has to do with the Racecar Engineering article (Aug 2002, pp 62) and the fact that the sae is being scrutinized by an international magazine? I for one whole-heartily agree that the foot bays need to be completely triangulated...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think it had much to do with it, the judges were talking about it last year during competition.

-Charlie Ping
Auburn University FSAE 1999-present

ben

11-27-2002, 12:48 PM

I think this is silly. There is no frontal impact requirement and the letter of the rules do not ask for triangulation in this area.

Why should we be forced to add weight to a part of the car that takes no torsional load just because the judges don't like what the letter of the rules says?

I think the 'spirit of the rules' argument has no place in racing. If you don't want to see something you specifically prohibit it, if not you have to put up with what that means.

If this had been announced just two weeks later we would have bonded a honeycomb floor in and had no opportunity to weld additional tubes in after that. The idea that we miss out on the design semis just because of that absolutely sucks.

Ben

Richard Lewis

11-27-2002, 01:14 PM

Ben I think the issue is more the timing of their announcements. This is far too late in the year to be announcing rule changes for next May. I can totally understand your frustration, as we were somewhat lucky to have allready triangulated our foot bay... but if we had chosen not to, then we'd be up $#!+ creek without a paddle so to speak.

-------------------------
UVIC Formula SAE Team
http://members.shaw.ca/drax77/UVICFSAEcar.jpg
http://fsae.uvic.ca

ben

11-28-2002, 05:00 AM

We'd have been up there without a boat let alone a paddle :-)

Ben

Michael Jones

11-28-2002, 06:19 PM

...the spirit of the law issue notwithstanding, I wonder how many schools will show up without appropriate triangulation. The only official release on this has been in SAE forum, which hardly anyone uses, and here, which isn't official and therefore could not even be a obligatory reference point for information.

I bet this is going to hose a few people, which is unfortunate and easily accounted for if, as suggested, the idea was already on the table last year.

Jason Davis

10-29-2003, 08:36 PM

Hey guys, I'm new here, and maybe I just missed it, but is there somewhere I can get a hard copy of the rule changes?

PatClarke

10-30-2003, 02:41 AM

Hi Jason,
You certainly won't find them here...This is an 'outlaw' site http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Visit the official SAE site at sae.org, follow the links to FSAE and sownload the 2004 rules.
You really shoulda known that!
PDR

Rudeness is a weak mans imitation of strength

Ben Beacock

10-30-2003, 06:39 AM

Were currently wrestling with this rule..

http://www.soe.uoguelph.ca/webfiles/uogracing/photogallery/photo976/uppersupport.jpg
http://www.soe.uoguelph.ca/webfiles/uogracing/photogallery/photo976/nouppersupport.jpg

Both add triangulation to the front, but the upper one does it a bit better. However, the upper bar gets really close to the feet so anyone with size 13 would be getting pretty close to touching when applying the brakes or throttle(size 12 modelled). Our legs are very high to clear the front axle and I don't want to move the bulkead any higher because it cuts off visibility.

Any thoughts?

Ben Beacock
Co-Manager
2004 Gryphon Racing - University of Guelph (http://www.soe.uoguelph.ca/uogracing)

Big Daddy

10-30-2003, 09:36 AM

I take it from your model you are using an inline 4 cylinder with 4 wheel drive. My question is why dont you use a 600cc atv 4 wheel drive shaft driven like say the Kawi Prarie or Yamaha Grizzly also these offer the benifet of being cvts with a front diff lock which means in the accel event you have 4 wheels all spinning the same!!!! Granted some engine work would be required since they are bot a little above the 610cc limit but nothing shorter rods and shaved head wouldnt take care of.

"A woman is a lot like a beer, they look good, smell good, and you would run over your own mother to get one." Homer Simpson

Nobody is born with a steering wheel or a gear shift in his hand. It's something you choose to do or you don't.
Mario Andretti (1977)

Charlie

10-30-2003, 03:19 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Ben Beacock:
Both add triangulation to the front, but the upper one does it a bit better. However, the upper bar gets really close to the feet so anyone with size 13 would be getting pretty close to touching when applying the brakes or throttle(size 12 modelled). Our legs are very high to clear the front axle and I don't want to move the bulkead any higher because it cuts off visibility.

Any thoughts?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You've got to go with the first option. Not only will the judges hate the other one, but it is dangerous. The feet are totally exposed. We got a big chiding in 2002 for a setup that exposed the feet less, and lately they've been even more adamant about it.

Make the front bulkhead higher if you need to. Visibility is almost a non-factor, if your driver is looking right in front of the car you've got bigger problems. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

-Charlie Ping
Auburn University FSAE (http://eng.auburn.edu/organizations/SAE/AUFSAE)
5th Overall Detroit 2003
? Overall Aussie 2003. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Jason Davis

10-30-2003, 03:48 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Suddenlee:
Hi Jason,
You certainly won't find them here...This is an 'outlaw' site http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Visit the official SAE site at sae.org, follow the links to FSAE and sownload the 2004 rules.
You really shoulda known that!
PDR

Rudeness is a weak mans imitation of strength<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I got the rules, it just sounded like it was something that hadn't been officially posted anywhere. But thanx for the info

BeaverGuy

10-30-2003, 07:09 PM

The top one is better for foot protection but it isn't fully triangulated. There is a trapezoid along side the feet. Which isn't there on the bottom one.

Ben Beacock

10-31-2003, 07:11 AM

I'm certainly leaning completely towards the first design. For the weight it adds, it will be more than offset by 'piece-of-mind'.
It amazed me how little protection was built into the front frames when going through photos from last year's competition.

Ben Beacock
Co-Manager
2004 Gryphon Racing - University of Guelph (http://www.soe.uoguelph.ca/uogracing)

Michael Jones

11-03-2003, 01:13 PM

http://fsae.mae.cornell.edu/gallery/crash_and_recovery/main.html

Definitely something to be said for fully bracing and triangulating the bulkhead. The first model looks closer to the letter and spirit of the law, which in this case is a damn good thing to do. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

---
Michael Jones
Coordinator, Student Project Teams, College of Engineering

Cornell Racing
http://fsae.mae.cornell.edu

PatClarke

11-04-2003, 02:52 AM

Hey Big Daddy,
Since when will shorter conrods and a head job decrease an engines capacity?
http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
I might suggest you might need longer rods......after you shorten the stroke =]
Seriously, it would be easier I am sure, to reduce the capacity by sleeving the bores and finding appropriate pistons. With luck you could leave the rods alone =]
PDR

Rudeness is a weak mans imitation of strength

Frank

11-04-2003, 03:20 AM

on that note Pat,

I ask..

have you EVER seen the capacity of an FSAE engine tested, in a dispute?

ps ours is standard, so please don't order it to be stripped down http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

regards

Frank

Big Daddy

11-04-2003, 05:36 AM

Pat,

Good point that must have been the mexican I had for lunch that made me think backwards. I believe your right about just sleeving it quick, cheap and easy.

"A woman is a lot like a beer, they look good, smell good, and you would run over your own mother to get one." Homer Simpson

Nobody is born with a steering wheel or a gear shift in his hand. It's something you choose to do or you don't.
Mario Andretti (1977)

Steve Yao

11-04-2003, 09:20 PM

Michael,

So will Cornell be using more than a couple 1/2" members for triangulating the footbox in '04?

Did design judges have a problem with your footbox in '03?

Obviously, it did not hold you back from doing well in design comp. Was it because you were able to show them an un-injured driver from that collision?

-Steve Yao

PatClarke

11-05-2003, 02:54 AM

At FSAE 2002 several cars were checked for bore and stroke. Thyis random check included winners UOW.
The check was done through the spark plug hole with a neat folding bore gauge. Stroke mesaurement as a simple depth gauge.

Anyway, the potential embarassment and sanctions keep most, if not all, teams honest.
PDR

Rudeness is a weak mans imitation of strength

PatClarke

11-05-2003, 02:51 PM

Then Frank, I was thinking I should direct the scrutineers to dismantle the UQ engine to it's last nut. bolt and washer, giving it back to you in several torn cardboard boxes.
All this after we have disqualified you on the following grounds.
1. Gudgeon pin circlip installation direction is random.
2. Incorrect oil used to lubricate the cam cover gasket, and
3. We didnt like your attitude at the after event party.
Then I remembered I was no longer involved in karting http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
PDR

Rudeness is a weak mans imitation of strength

Frank

11-06-2003, 02:16 AM

oops, have stories got out from last years party? I SWEAR it was only a rubber chicken, and Mark Fenning won't be allowed to consume alcohol this year

http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

D DeJohn

11-08-2003, 10:54 AM

I'm a little confused... the footbox triangulation clarification is listed under "important documents" on the SAE website, and the date listed in the signature is 11-15-2002, meaning it should have been up there for about a year. I know in our case I came across it while we were building the frame (mid-September), so we won't ave to do any "cut and paste." Has this clarification actually been posted for a year, or did I just stumble across it shortly after it was added to the website.