Rule Clarification (3.3.4 Roll Hoops)

[Hoosier Daddy]

"3.3.4 Roll Hoops (PAGE 19)

The driver's head and hands must be protected from contact with the
ground in any rollover attitude.
This requires a main hoop (roll bar) near the driver and a front hoop. Refer
to Figure 1 on the next page."

Specifically wondering if the hands on the steering wheel, from the front view, can be laterally outside the roll hoop.

IE, as it appears in these pictures:

http://www.me.chalmers.se/formula/bilder/archive/fsae/11.jpg

http://www.me.chalmers.se/formula/bilder/archive/fsae/3.jpg

No trees were killed in the making of this thread.... However, a large number of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.

[Kirk Feldkamp]

Brent,

Dude! That is a crazy pic of the sheared upright!!! Did you ever fix it and run again with that sort of design?

-twig

[Andreas]

Hello!

The only thing on the car that was not completely according to the rules was the nose radius of the body work. In England it passed because a foam on the white tip would ruin the looks of the car. In Australia it did not pass... The frame is up to the rule what we know. We have not found anything claiming otherwise. I do not think there is a rule about the width of the front role hoop what we found, just a hight criteria relative the steering wheel

Andreas, Chalmers 2002, 2003

Chalmers University of Technology

[PatClarke]

Hi Hoosier Daddy,
If you want a rule clarification, do it through Kathleen McDonald to the Rulkes Committee.
If you are having a bitch about something you don't think meets the rules, then say so.
As Andreas points out, this car has been past two sets of inspectors a world apart and passed both times.
The rules regarding protection are broader than simply what the roll hoops cover. There is a safety area designated by the hoops and lines across the wheel tops. Without seating a driver in place and running straight edges from point to point it is impossible to prove or disprove compliance.

And MrBrent Howard,
two sets of qualified inspectors were able to prove the Chalmers car met the relevant rules. Acceptance to run in the competition in the UK or in Australia had NOTHING to do with the judges liking the styling, and to suggest so demonstrates your small mindedness.

Get your eye back on the ball and look after the compliance of your own car, the Tech Inspectors will look after everyone else. They really don't need your uninvited interference.
PDR

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy

[David Kieke]

Rule 3.4.12 - All vehicle controls, including the shifter must be accessible from inside the cockpit without any part of the driver being outside any of the major structural members of the vehicle. An example of this is that arms must not reach around roll bar supports to operate the shifter of the vehicle.

Rules questions should be directed to the Rules Committe, but a safe bet is to err on the side of caution. It is horribly frustrating and inconvenient to spend all night in the GM machine shop cutting and rewelding tubes.

Good Luck,
David

[Hoosier Daddy]

Hi Suddenlee,

If you want a rule clarification, do it through Kathleen McDonald to the Rulkes Committee.>> we are aware that there is a rules committee but we are looking for informal advice from others in a more timley fashion based on experience.

We are not trying to bitch anyone out, but rather are seeking resolution to a discussion within our team. We can all appreciate that the Chalmers car is very well designed and styled and were just hoping to recieve some useful feedback.

Our concern is not with the vertical position in side view but rather when the wheel is turned must the hands must remain inside the front hoop.
Through visual inspection of the pictures presented it would seem obvious that the knuckles of the driver would extend outside the plane formed between the two roll hoops when the wheel is turned to around 45degrees.

No trees were killed in the making of this thread.... However, a large number of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.

[Brent Howard]

First of all a response to turbowig. We did fix that upright with a simaler design, but made some modifications to the welding process and joint so that the weld could no longer be placed in shear and also so that deeper penetration was possible.

Second an apology to Pat and other Judges as well as Chalmers. I have deleted my previous post, but I think I should explain a bit. Based on photographs I have seen of Chalmers car I feel that, with the driver in the picture, the 2" rule from the drivers helmet is violated. That said I think even if I were a Judge myself I would have allowed them to compete. It is obvious that the car was built to comform to the rules and alot of work was put into the car. I personally think that the Chalmers car is very well designed and manufactured. Judging is a very subjective thing and I realize that it is a very difficult process. This subjectivness will always result in controversy. In any sporting event the referee's judgement is constantly questioned. I don't think that the judges were wrong to pass Chalmers in tech, and I also do not think that they are infallible.

This is the picture I am refering to

http://www.me.chalmers.se/formula/bilder/archive/fsae/13.jpg

and this is the rule

3.3.4.1 Main and Front Hoops – General Requirements
(A) When seated normally and restrained by the seat belt/shoulder
harness, a straight line drawn from the top of the main hoop to the
top of the front hoop must clear by 50.8 mm (2 inches) both the
tallest driver's helmet and the helmet of a 95th percentile male
(anthropometrical data).

Brent

www.ucalgary.ca/fsae (http://www.ucalgary.ca/fsae)

[Frank]

on the subject of roll hoops and chassis...


we only just realised you should be using 28.58*2.11 for the roll hoops, and 28.58*1.25 for the side impact

Frank

[Andreas]

First i´d like to say that I don´t find Hoosier Daddys first question offensive to our car. Our car is just used as an example an fine with me. For some other replies I will come to later.

Our car have been scutineered deeply both in UK and AUS because it it close to what is allowed. We didn´t make the main roll higher than we had to and we didn´t make the front roll hope wider than we had to. But still it is following the rules. One thing often questioned on site is that our shift lever is positioned outside the side protection tubes. We first questioned it ourselves. The rules states that you should be inside the Major Stucture which is defined as a envelope of the roll hopes and front bracing and perhaps some other members. Steering and shifting was done inside this envelope and this is my answer to the first question by Hoosier Daddy.

Brents question I don´t find constructive at all. The same attitude I find in the Event Gallery thread where Ben writes, speaking about our main hope:
"I'm sure we could all design lighter cars if we removed some roll hoop tubes, but that's not exactly fair is it."
I get sad when I read this stuff. We passed scrutineering twice with our tallest driver who is 196 cm tall, far taller than the 95% male and among the tallest drivers. Normally seated in the car there was 50 mm to the defining line. If you are to measure it when turning your head in a race situation or never be able to reach a distance smaller than 50 mm we probably would have failed. The rules says normal position and in the normal position we passed. You might say something about "the intention of the rule" and if you were to follow that you would make your restrictor 15 mm in diametre to keep the speed down because "the intention of the rule".
Anyone?

We have built a car that is proven Fast, Light and Stylish and we are very proud of it. Therefore I don´t like comments like "we could all do that but it isn´t fair" Please do! It IS fair! Proven twice. Just because we passed with many things REALLY close to what is allowed doesn´t make it unfair, does it?

Andreas, Chalmers 2002, 2003

Chalmers University of Technology

[Brent Howard]

Andreas,

I completly agree there. The entire point of this competition is to push the envelope as far as possible. I think that every team tries to do this in some way or another. I don't see too many cars running at 105 db for good reason. I also feel that everything was built to the intent of the rules. We also had the same issue with our nosecone last year and had to put foam on it because of a sharp line that we had. We have had cars in the past that were built to the intent of the rules, as we interpreted it, but still I think I could pick one of our cars apart too.

Brent

www.ucalgary.ca/fsae (http://www.ucalgary.ca/fsae)

[Sam Zimmerman]

It is a shame that your car is being talked about in a negative way at all. My only complaint was that we didn't make a car a beautiful as yours (but we are working on it this year!) As my buddy Lacy put it:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>http://www.roadandtrack.com/images/rt_images/2002/november/2002_11_eagle_lead.jpg
Nice homage, I'm sure Dan Gurney would be proud.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is a shame you couldn't get #36. One may want to note that Mr. Gurney didn't read the FSAE rules either. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Sam Zimmerman
Vandals Racing (http://www.uidaho.edu/~racing)

[Sam Zimmerman]

oops, doubled again

[MercerFSAE C. Burch]

I don't know if I'd want do drive fast in Chalmer's car near a wall or anything else solid! But I will say that it is one very beautiful car!

-Chris

[Denny Trimble]

I wouldn't want to drive near walls in ANY FSAE car!

University of Washington Formula SAE ('98, '99, '03, '04)

[ben]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andreas:
. The same attitude I find in the Event Gallery thread where Ben writes, speaking about our main hope:
"I'm sure we could all design lighter cars if we removed some roll hoop tubes, but that's not exactly fair is it."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry you find that sad Andreas, but in the pic on the event gallery your driver's head is too high with respect to the line between the roll hoops.

I don't doubt you were legal in scrutineering, but being legal in tech and being legal at all times on track are two very different things.

Your car is cool, and I was one of the first to congratulate you on the first day of Formula Student 2003. I still think your car was sometimes illegal on track with respect to the roll hoops though. Having said that so are lots of cars.

Ben

University of Birmingham
www.ubracing.co.uk (http://www.ubracing.co.uk)

[Charlie]

Unless they change the rule to where the drivers head cannot cross the plane under ANY conditions then nobody can gripe about the Chalmers car!

When seated in the normal position they passed the inspection which requires a 2in space between the helmet and plane.

If you think the rule should be changed to better reflect the spirit of it then that is one thing... but there is no reason to try an claim the Clamers car was illegal because it was not.

It does concern me that the FStudent judges let the nose rule go "because a foam on the white tip would ruin the looks of the car." The nose radius rule isn't my favorite rule and it really doesn't affect the cars performance, still the rules should be the same for all cars.

-Charlie Ping

I just need enough to tide me over until I need more.

[ben]

Good point Charlie. However the 'spirit' of the regs seems to be taken into consideration in rules clarifications. We got short shrift on one of our ideas despite it meeting the letter of the rules.

Ben

University of Birmingham
www.ubracing.co.uk (http://www.ubracing.co.uk)

[Andreas]

Excactly my point Charlie. The rules doesn´t say anything about "sometimes on track". If it would, we would have failed but that is not the case.

Further on I think it´s alright to discuss the rules and have our car as an example of what is allowed and why.

But when I comes to...
"I still think your car was sometimes illegal on track with respect to the roll hoops though."
and
"I'm sure we could all design lighter cars if we removed some roll hoop tubes, but that's not exactly fair is it."
...I get sad, because the intention of writing this isn´t constructive at all. It is, in my opinion, just writing us down.
I think it´s propriate to discuss wheter the rules should be changed to include all circumstances, but claiming our car is illegal isn´t creative in that discussion.

I don´t think many teams would gain weight by designing to, with no margin, fit a 196 cm driver..

Andreas, Chalmers 2002, 2003

Chalmers University of Technology

[Big Bird]

Hey Andreas,

Great to hear from you mate. After seeing the link above I'm currently checking out some of your photos from your Oz trip. Bringing back some cool memories!

I also think it a shame that your car is being singled out in this thread. Unfortunately it's the nature of the beast, that when you do well in this comp there is always someone who'll find a reason why you shouldn't have. Professional jealousy I guess. We've probably all got some little oversights on our cars that push the rules a little, due to mismeasurements, CAD stuff-ups, whatever. It happens.

What I will say to anyone else that is reading, is that the Chalmers guys can teach us all a lesson in how to approach this comp. Great car, and I've not met another team with such a laid back attitude and great sense of humour. They came to Oz, beat all us locals, took our trophies and our prizemoney and I don't reckon there was a single person there who begrudged them for it.

Look forward to catching up in Bruntingthorpe Andreas, I've heard there's some beers there with our names on them.

Cheers

Geoff Pearson
RMIT FSAE 2003

Design it. Build it. Write it off two weeks before the event.

[V2 - Italy]

I don't care about not constructive discussion,
I think that everybody MUST do his best and prove to be the best.
I remember the Chalmers 2002 car and I apreciated the big gap with the 2003 car.

Now I like to know if Andreas can tell us which was their engine rev limit, especially during the Aussie acceleration event.
Someone says it was 15000rpm, others say it was 14000rpm...
I also like to know which was the final ratio, is it possible?

See you soon.

Daniele

Firenze Race Team V2
http://www.firenzerace.too.it
DUCATI POWER at the UniversitÃ* di Firenze

[Andreas]

I´ve heard that you are going to UK as well as our Monash friends. I still don´t see you on the registration though...getting at bit worried, I hope you register before it is to late. The five beanies are not involved this year so we will just go to England to have a great time and cheer our Austrialian friends.....and perhaps a beer...

I think all teams should go to the aussie event for a lesson. I think Geoff described us the way that we would describe the Australians. You don´t find friendlier people than the Australians. The atmosphere is much more laid back than in UK (haven´t been to US comp) and the teams are happily sharing information, Can you imagine!

See you in UK Geoff and say hallo to your team from the swedes

Andreas, Chalmers 2002, 2003

Chalmers University of Technology

[Big Bird]

Hi there Andreas,

Everything is in order except the uni is taking a while to approve the rego fee. Usual bureaucracy. We are sweating a bit, I see the entries are filling up quick.

Cheers,

Geoff Pearson
RMIT FSAE 2003

Design it. Build it. Write it off two weeks before the event.

[Hoosier Daddy]

OK,

We are now off-topic. I still would like opinions on whether it is within the 'intent' of the rules:

(The driver's head and hands must be protected from contact with the ground in ANY rollover attitude)

I only used Chalmer's because a picture is worth a 1000 words.

Is it reasonable to assume that the ENTIRE steering wheel be inside the roll bar envelope based on the above rule? It is *possible* that hands being outside the envelope would be crushed in a roll-over.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I didn't mean to single out Chalmers car. It was completely unintentional. In fact I find it the most compelling of any FSAE car.

_____________________________________________

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoosier Daddy:
"3.3.4 Roll Hoops (PAGE 19)

The driver's head and hands must be protected from contact with the
ground in any rollover attitude.
This requires a main hoop (roll bar) near the driver and a front hoop. Refer
to Figure 1 on the next page."

Specifically wondering if the hands on the steering wheel, from the front view, can be laterally outside the roll hoop.

IE, as it appears in these pictures:

http://www.me.chalmers.se/formula/bilder/archive/fsae/11.jpg

http://www.me.chalmers.se/formula/bilder/archive/fsae/3.jpg

No trees were killed in the making of this thread.... However, a large number of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No trees were killed in the making of this thread.... However, a large number of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.

[jack]

as far as chalmers' car getting criticized, it seems that groundbreaking cars get much more attention than everyone else, so little things get noticed. at least that is what i have noticed about WWU's V8 car.

anyway, latley as we have been working on our body work, i have been wondering about that min radius rule. what is the point of the rule??? does everyone abide by it? it seems like people ignore it and get away with it...

jack @ WWU
http://www.etec.wwu.edu/

[Andreas]

We have been told that you should keep inside the evelope defined by the hoops and front bracing. Therefore we were allowed to have the shifter lever on the outside of the side impact tubes as well as our steering wheel is wider than the front hoop at some places. The front bracing widens the envelope in our case and as long you are inside this envelope it should be OK. That is how we read the rules and that is what the scrutineers have told us

Daniele, we rev the engine to a bit over 15000 rpm, both in UK and AUS. The main difference in times 4.33 to 4.02 is the launch. In UK we ran our first two runs in 1st and 2nd gear with a best of 4.34. Toronto told us to start in second gear. We didn´t have time to pracise the technique and finished second (to Toronto) with 4.33 and advanced from the equal 4.34 with our swedish collegues (Thanks Toronto). In australia we did one run in just second gear at 4.1 something and the 4.02 was in second and third.
I have to check the final ratio but i think it´s about 3.5:1

Geoff, I really hope your registration problems will be sorted out quickly so we´ll see ya in UK

Andreas, Chalmers 2002, 2003

Chalmers University of Technology

[Sam Zimmerman]

Jack,

I don't quite understand what the point of the minimum raduis rule is but if you don't abide by the letter of it you have to drive with a goofy looking piece of foam on the front of your car. We had a squared off nose last year but had to put foam on the front where the crease in the body was because we were in violation of the rule.

Sam Zimmerman
Vandals Racing (http://www.uidaho.edu/~racing)

[Andreas]

What I´ve been told, the rule is to prevent people from beeing injured of a rolling car in the pitlane.
What is more interesting is that a wing or an endplate are allowed to have smaller radius.
You might have figured out that I don´t like the rule either..

Andreas

Chalmers University of Technology

[V2 - Italy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andreas:

Daniele, we rev the engine to a bit over 15000... I have to check the final ratio but i think it´s about 3.5:1

Chalmers University of Technology<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you Andreas.

Firenze Race Team V2
http://www.firenzerace.too.it
DUCATI POWER at the UniversitÃ* di Firenze

[Dan Deussen @ Weber Motor]

Andreas-

Would you care to share some engine performance data/dyno graphs? On a '98 GSX-R 600 engine I have been able to bring the power peek in the 12k rpm range but after 12.5k HP does start to drop quite rapidly. I really don't se how a restricted engine can still make power at 15k rpm. Would you care to enlighten me?

Daniel Deussen
www.walbro-italy.com (http://www.walbro-italy.com)

[Andreas]

Dan, I think our engine is about how you described but even if the power is much lower, it still pulls good all the way to the rev limit. If the gear shift would have been instant I think it you should change gear at about 13k. The gear change is a ineffective part of the acceleraton and I think that what you loose in Power, you gain during the gear shift due to higher speed. Still I think the difference is very small since the gear shift occures very late.

Andreas

Chalmers University of Technology

[Andreas]

Daniele,

Our final drive is actually 3.733 (56/15) which means that we reach a bit over 100kph in second gear

Andreas

Chalmers University of Technology

[V2 - Italy]

Thank you, Andreas.

Firenze Race Team V2
http://www.firenzerace.too.it
DUCATI POWER at the UniversitÃ* di Firenze