Effects of rule changes [Archive]

Kevin Hayward

02-21-2012, 07:21 PM

I thought I would post this as some positive feedback. It appears that the recent changes to the rules have improved FSAE quite a lot. I am mainly referring to the aerodynamic changes allowing sharper trailing edges, more plan area, and moving wings. A couple of main design considerations have changed:

- After removing most of the advantages for 4 cylinder engines through more points to fuel economy, aero returns some of that advantage by allowing teams with more power to take advantage of more downforce (due to being able to carry more drag). The recent changes have made it possible for cars to have too much drag relative to the power, which is a good thing. This might have a side effect of more teams trying to do custom engines.

- Aero development simply can't be ignored now. While teams may not decide to make aero packages some of their competitors will. As a result teams almost by default have to consider whether or not to run aero, rather than dismissing the possibility all together. Aero should be more prominent in design discussions. This is good as a fundamental area of mechanical engineering is in the forefront of students minds.

- for cars that go aero weight is now even more important, given that your downforce divided by your car weight will be the grip modifier.

Going over the trade-offs there are now a number of very competitive concepts that will largely depend on your competition. For example if there are no winged cars a single car can take economy points, without losing too many dynamics. A high powered, high aero car might put a decent enough points gap to nullify it, where a non aero four might not. There seems a big increase in valid approaches:

- Lightweight single aimed to reduce fuel use as much as possible with high mech. grip
- Single with high aero to maximise normalised aerodynamics, but maintain low fuel use
- High powered four with maximum downforce to go as fast as possible
- Light(ish) four to have high accel, mech. grip, and coast a little on endurance to reduce fuel use
- Custom lightweight engine to have low fuel, low weight (with or without aero)

I applaud the recent rules changes in opening up the potential concepts. I still am very critical of the ones that came before:

- Change in fuel economy scores pushing to singles and low fuel use rather than efficiency (Germany did this well though)
- Templates!! Removed one of the fundamental trade-offs in chassis design of driver comfort vs. weight/packaging
- More mandated tubes making tube chassis' more uniform and generally unnecessarily improving the relative performance of monocoques

When Carroll Smith was still around he was making noise about fundamentally changing the rules to cause a bit of a shakeup. This was in response to the convergence of US cars to a norm (i.e. 95% of teams trying to be Cornell). I would say the recent aero changes have done that and we are now in the middle of an exciting time in FSAE.

Comments? Thoughts?

Kev

Kevin Hayward

02-21-2012, 07:21 PM

Big Bird

02-22-2012, 04:06 PM

Nice points made there Kev, although you are hardly going to stir up much response when you open with a line about positive feedback. Where is the controversy in that?

As far as the rule changes go, you seem to have missed the point that Monash can now fit an even larger weather shelter to the back of their car. This is a crucial point as their ever-expanding team no longer fits inside a standard pit tent. Given your sensitivity to Melbourne weather Kev, how did you miss that?

JT A.

02-22-2012, 07:42 PM

As a team that's been using wings for a while, definitely think it's a good thing that people are finally starting to catch on to the benefits of wings. Anything that draw more branches of engineering students (most likely aerospace) to work together on a project is a positive. For too long, too many people were very closed-minded about them. "You just don't go fast enough, they're useless" The same people usually turn right around and contradict themselves by saying "and think how much drag you're adding!" If we don't go fast enough for the downforce to matter, we don't go fast for drag to matter either. You can't have it both ways.

I think the rule change is especially good for the design event. In our past experience it seems like having wings puts you at an unfair disadvantage in design. A team could put absolutely 0 thought into aerodynamics and the judges are too willing to accept an answer of "we just don't think its worth it" and not dock any points.

Meanwhile a team that does put a lot of effort into designing a good wing package just opens themselves up to get docked unless you have overwhelming test data to change the judge's pre-formed opinion about wings. IE last year year we had a ton of CFD results comparing different profiles & configurations but couldn't get access to a wind tunnel before competition so the judges just refused to believe any of it.

Hopefully with wings becoming more established that will even out a bit.

Scott Wordley

02-23-2012, 03:04 PM

I really wish that was the case Kev, but there are a couple of reasons why I think that this new golden age of engine and aero diversity will not come to pass.

Firstly, there is little to no current overhead in the amount of aero cars are able to run. Specially in the Aus comp where track design has forced our track widths to the limits of stability, with a consequent decrease in vehicle plan area and wing span. A four cylinder car does not have access to more aero than a single, in fact I would argue they are less able to generate DF due to the narrow package of singles and the flow on effect of being able to run greater diffuser angles, i.e. Maryland's carbon rear keel concept).

So, neglecting drag considerations for a second, the 4s will never be capable of achieving the same specific downforce as a lighter single car, assuming all other aspects of the design are equal and the cars are developed and refined to the same level.

With regard to the drag issue, DRS (drag reduction system) and moveable aerodynamics will provide additional advantage to the aero cars. They effectively get to have their cake (downforce) and eat it too (low drag). If designed and implemented well, the lower power Aero singles will not suffer the drag penalty of carrying an obscene amount of wing. Neither will the Aero 4s. So in the straights, both these aero cars will have performance comparable to their non-Aero competitors + 20 kg. That level of weight is only just outside the competition "noise" limits discussed previously, and well within the driver variation for most teams.

This means that the Aero cars will have a significant advantage over the non-Aero cars in all cornering and braking segments, and only a slight weight disadvantage in the straights.

Furthermore the lighter weight single aero cars will have a significant advantage over the heavier 4 cylinder aero cars in all cornering and braking segments due to their higher specific downforce. Assumed lower fuel consumption is an added bonus.

Perhaps sadly, on this basis, the archetype of a high performance, high scoring Formula SAE car for the current rules seems both crystal clear and rather singular:

It is a lightweight, single cylinder car, with maximum aero and DRS capability. Anything less (or more) and you will be bringing a knife to a gun fight (all other things being equal... which they rarely are).

This is obviously just my personal opinion, but it is backed up by our team's point sims. Kev, I would suggest you program a DRS option into your point sim (if you havent already) and see the effects.

Time will tell...

Scott

PS: How good would downforce cake taste? http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kevin Hayward

02-23-2012, 05:29 PM

Scott,

The points sims long ago indicated that a four with aero (by the old aero rules) was the best option before increase in fuel economy points. But we rarely saw teams adopt that approach. The recent change offers such an advantage to aero teams that we will definitely see an increase in aero vehicles.

The single lightweight aero with DRS concept you present is not ideal. It is entirely possible to build a top power engine for the weight and packaging of a single. Hence the single cylinder engine choice already shows compromise to reduce required resources. As has already been the case aero (and DRS) requires extra resources, so while on paper the standard single or four may not be as good it may be easier to implement them well. I wouldn't predict their demise in competitiveness too soon.

You and I have been around long enough to know that it doesn't really matter which concept is the theoretical "best" but rather who can implement a concept that is good enough very well. This is where resource allocation and team knowledge and skills creation plays a big part.

The other effect that comes into play is the thrid team effect. It is easy in the points sims to compare one car concept to another, or even a field of sensible cars. What may need to be taken into account is the outlier. If we assume that there are two teams and for the sake of it we assume equal driving ability:

Lightweight single with aero and DRS (Monash 2012 in current direction)

High powered four with aero (no DRS, but flaps able to open) (Monash 2012 returns to four and has Cornell Alumni do their engine)

On the comparison they should come close to equal on skidpan (now being limited by wheel lifting). The four takes accel easily. The single takes autocross and endurance (not by much) and takes fuel. In comparison the single has quite easily trumped the four.

Now we add other cars to the competition. In the mix we have a super lightweight single. It is a reasonably quick car but plays to conserve fuel in enduro. It uses a ridiculously low amount of fuel rendering the fuel advantage of the previous single meaningless. The gap closes.

There is also a high powered four (great mechanical grip) with a crusty old driver who has FSAE cars moulded around him. The driver manages to peel out a super fast autocross time based on abnormal driver ability more than having the ideal car. Now the autocross advantage has been eroded. The gap is even closer.

At this stage the sacrifice in accel points now becomes an issue that it wasn't before. The lightweight aero single still has the edge, but it has been significantly reduced, making the two concepts much closer and well within the points "noise" due to preparation. Interestingly on the strategic front the aero four is likely to be in front at the start of the final day. It is always good to be in the lead at any stage in an event. It could be weather that decides the winner. By the way when it rains the four by necessity had implemented a good traction control system, the single hadn't (a very common approach for both teams) this alone makes the four faster in the rain.

I admit that the big hit strategically is the potential of losing fuel points. This is in reality a weakness in fuel use rather than fuel efficiency, the same scenario does not play out the same way in Germany. To my mind the only dynamic events you can realistically design to win are skidpan, accel, and endurance. Autocross is too dependent on driver skill and can be stolen by freak drivers, and fuel use is too dependent on lap times and can be stolen by a coasting car.

So while I largely agree with you in theory that the lightweight aero car is dominant, I would imagine in practice the concepts will not be as far away in points. The points gap by Monash at Melbourne was as much to do with team preparedness, vehcile development, and a good driver squad as it was having the better theoretical conept (which they also had). We cannot forget Stuttgart's recent world dominance with a theoretical "less optimum" vehicle.

So I return to being positive about us entering a period of increased vehicle diversity and points being traded between concepts.

Kev

carbon_black

02-23-2012, 05:38 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This is obviously just my personal opinion, but it is backed up by our team's point sims. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't worry Scott - it's not just your team's simulations that say that. Even as the Australian track layout discriminates against aero more and more, year on year, it'll be a long time before the gains are lost.

--
Pete,
Ex-UTS.

theTTshark

02-23-2012, 08:59 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pete Ringwood:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This is obviously just my personal opinion, but it is backed up by our team's point sims. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't worry Scott - it's not just your team's simulations that say that. Even as the Australian track layout discriminates against aero more and more, year on year, it'll be a long time before the gains are lost.

--
Pete,
Ex-UTS. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's funny that the tracks are so aero unfriendly considering we are building cars for SCCA Autocrosses. In case you haven't seen one, think of a course on concrete big enough that even Corvettes can stretch their legs, and you have the SCCA National Championships. In fact I challenge any non-aero car to come to that event and try to win it.

bob.paasch

02-24-2012, 01:30 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by theTTshark:
It's funny that the tracks are so aero unfriendly considering we are building cars for SCCA Autocrosses. In case you haven't seen one, think of a course on concrete big enough that even Corvettes can stretch their legs, and you have the SCCA National Championships. In fact I challenge any non-aero car to come to that event and try to win it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From the 2012 FSAE rules:

"A1.1.1 To give teams the maximum design flexibility and the freedom to express their creativity and
imaginations there are very few restrictions on the overall vehicle design. The challenge to teams is to
develop a vehicle that can successfully compete in all the events described in the FSAE Rules. The
competitions themselves give teams the chance to demonstrate and prove both their creativity and
their engineering skills in comparison to teams from other universities around the world."

We are not building cars for SCCA autocross. We are building cars for FSAE/FS competitions. Most of those competitions take place at venues without the room to build a SCCA Nationals course.

I have no problem with a team deciding to build a car to compete at the SCCA Nationals, but IMHO they then lose the right to complain about tight FSAE/FS courses. The FSAE/FS course are what they are, if you want to win, design to those courses.

02-24-2012, 07:01 PM

Kevin,

Let me start with some shouting. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

1. High downforce DOES NOT IMPLY high drag!!!

(And, turning volume down a bit.)

2. Under the old rules, a lightweight aero car, done right, would have DOMINATED.
~~~o0o~~~

Regarding #2 above, I recall Carroll Smith saying something similar 10+ years ago.

So I don't think the rule changes have really changed much at all, other than perhaps providing an even bigger incentive for the teams to go "aero" (a necessary push to get the teams out of their ruts). In fact, I think as soon as one of the teams "does it right", the rules will change back to less aero.
~~~o0o~~~

But the important point is #1 above.

I reckon the "downforce=drag" myth is a result of the motorsport regulatory mechanism that only allows grossly inefficient aero, mainly for safety reasons. That is, cars go faster because of more downforce, so things get more dangerous (or more costly to upgrade tracks), so rules are changed to give less downforce and more drag (ie. less efficient).

I would argue that with liberal rules a true "aero" car will have LESS DRAG than a non-aero car. By definition, non-aero cars don't bother with things like streamlining, and open-wheelers naturally have high drag. But any rational attempt to generate downforce requires some attempt to control the airflow over the car, and this is easiest if the car is "streamlined". Obvious example = wheel-pods! (BTW, high mounted rear wings = "air brakes"!)

So a simple analysis of the Dynamic events strongly suggests an aero car (even under the old rules). There might be break-even in Acceleration, because slightly more weight from aero panels, but slightly less drag. But the biggest first-order performance differentiator in the other events (SP, AX, and E) is DownForce/Weight, so a lightweight car is strongly favoured. Thus even Acc benefits from going "aero" (see below re: lightweight engines).
~~~o0o~~~

The increasing points awarded to Fuel Efficiency is an yet another incentive to go aero. Quite obviously FE benefits from low drag, and as noted above, good aero (both Cl and Cd) comes from smoothly controlled flows.

I think one of the main goals teams should be setting themselves is the "constant speed car". Namely, high enough corner speeds that they don't have to accelerate hard onto the straights, and then brake hard for the next corner. Again quite obviously, the braking is just dumping valuable energy into the atmosphere, which is not good for FE. The easiest way to get high corner speed is a lightweight car with high aero DF. (And a bonus is that you do NOT need a gearbox, so even less weight! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

So a lightweight aero car is win-win for Fuel Efficiency.
~~~o0o~~~

For the reasons given above, and IMHO, Drag Reduction Systems are a wank (more mindless mimicking of the "real racecars" in F1.)

But there is a big benefit possible from "active aero", IF some LATERAL thinking is applied. So, instead of the "lift" acting downwards, do it sideways! Fit a vertical wing (or two+), like on a sailboat, and steer it to give a centripetal force into the corners. It could be mechanically linked to the steering wheel, or electro++ controlled for more "optimal" performance on gusty days. This not only helps the tyres push the car into the corner, but since the aero force screw is likely above Cg height, it counteracts body roll and lessens LLT.

Simple stuff, but probably a leap too far for most teams. It would require some imagination.... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
~~~o0o~~~

I think it is a shame that the whole event, regardless of the rule set, is biased towards the building of unnecessarily complicated chassis and suspensions, and away from aero and engine design, where the real "efficiencies" are to be found. Bring last year's chassis and you are penalized 50+ points. Bring last year's off-the shelf engine, then platinum plate your titanium grumlinks, and you are rewarded with extra Design points.

I think the design and build of a lightweight, efficient, maximum horsepower bespoke engine (~120hp, given ~3 sq. cm restrictor) is quite achievable for many FSAE teams (easiest as a single!). The "limited resources" argument is countered by developing it over a number of years, and more importantly, stop wasting time on ridiculous suspension rockers, paddle shifters for the gearbox (which becomes redundant), bespoke CVs/axles/wheels, etc., etc.

FSAE is graduating thousands of chassis/suspension engineers each year, but who is going to design the next generation of lightweight, fuel efficient engines. Oh yes, they are going to be electric motors, so I won't be able to drive into town anymore... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Z

Kevin Hayward

02-24-2012, 07:40 PM

Z,

While I agree that high downforce does not have to equal high drag, you can always take any car you are suggesting and add a wing which would be more drag and more downforce. A car with "maximum" downforce will have higher drag.

You can start with any car and figure out how much drag you can deal with and then try and get as much downforce as efficiency as possible.

Kev

Gruntguru

02-24-2012, 10:05 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Z:
But there is a big benefit possible from "active aero", IF some LATERAL thinking is applied. So, instead of the "lift" acting downwards, do it sideways! Fit a vertical wing (or two+), like on a sailboat, and steer it to give a centripetal force into the corners. It could be mechanically linked to the steering wheel, or electro++ controlled for more "optimal" performance on gusty days. This not only helps the tyres push the car into the corner, but since the aero force screw is likely above Cg height, it counteracts body roll and lessens LLT. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I had thought about this concept previously and some quick calcs show that the emost efficient utilisation of downforce is a combination of lateral and vertical. The optimum ratio depends on mu. The optimum DF angle to vertical ranges from:

45* for mu = 1 (and a 41.42% improvement in "aero" grip) to
34* and 20% for mu = 1.5, and
27* and 12% for mu = 2.0.

So "tilting wings" somewhere in the future?

02-25-2012, 04:18 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kevin Hayward:
... you can always take any car you are suggesting and add a wing which would be more drag... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Kev,

And you could also add a parachute, which would be even more drag!

I repeat, aero cars should have LESS drag than non-aero.

(Maybe I'm biased. I own four Citroen DSs, and two Tatra T600s. One day I'll get one of them roadable!)
~~~o0o~~~

Gruntguru,

I figure your calcs above are based on the assumption of a constant amount of aero force.

My thinking was that the team would extract as much downforce from the undertray as practical (ie. from the plan area of the car). Then they can go after yet more aero force from vertical "sails".

Is there a max vertical height for "aero devices" in the rules? Or for non-aero, ahem, "bodywork"? If not, then the sky is the limit! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif (Although I would start with about 1 metre high, just to get a feel for it.)

Z

Kevin Hayward

02-25-2012, 07:13 AM

Z,

Maybe I should have phrased my response better to account for pot stirring.

Present any drawing, picture, concept of any car and I guarantee that us idiots can add downforce to it (including your super low drag FSAE aero car). I can't guarantee that it will come free of drag. At some point the additional weight/drag/COG height will outweigh the benefit of the added downforce, but that would almost certainly be past the point at which the aero car has less drag than the non-aero.

It is entirely possible to design a car using aero to have lower drag and higher donforce than one without. It will not however have the maximum possible downforce, and most likely not the best balance of downforce to drag for the competition. It is easy to see that the points in the competition are much more sensitive to downforce than drag, so even the inefficient downforce devices add points.

...

I would love to see someone take on the moveable vertical sails. There would be some interesting hurdles to overcome such as driver visibility and cockpit templates, but it would make for a very interesting car.

...

Lastly the Citroen DS and the Tatra T600 are both fantastic cars. If only we lived in a world where carmakers were more concerned with true engineering in personal transportation rather than selling new body shapes on old platforms by marketing a lifestyle. Where are our interconnected suspension systems and lightweight vehicles?

FSAE may actually be the only area of new cars (including racing) where average weight has declined in the last couple of decades.

Kev

Gruntguru

02-25-2012, 05:50 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Z:My thinking was that the team would extract as much downforce from the undertray as practical (ie. from the plan area of the car). Then they can go after yet more aero force from vertical "sails" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The optimum "angle from the vertical" for application of DF applies to any DF for which the angle of the force vector can be varied. In other words if you have an undertray that generates 500N (vertical only) plus a wing that generates 500N in any direction you like, the optimum angle for the wing will still be given by the above calcs - ie not horizontal. Of course all this assumes constant mu and neglects any benefit of reducing lateral weight transfer.

02-26-2012, 04:01 AM

Kevin,

The key reason for my "pot stirring" here http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, is to counter the myth that aero downforce comes with an unavoidable cost of increased drag. Or, for that matter, with much more weight, higher CG, etc.

The above myth comes from the ubiquitous high mounted rear wing on formula cars, which is an abomination.

So, all FSAE aero students;

1. Get that picture of the "high rear wing" out of your minds.

2. "Streamline" your car (good for Fuel Efficiency http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif). Try a central cigar shaped fuselage, and add four tear-drop shaped wheel-pods at the corners. (And as long as there is nothing specific against these wheel-pods in the rules, DO NOT accept any arbitrary "spirit of the rules" bulldust bans from the scrutineers.)

3. Generate ALL your downforce from an "aero undertray". This approach is relatively lightweight, it lowers CG, and it generates negligible drag for tyre popping downforce (the rotating wheels will give more drag).
~~~o0o~~~

Regarding vertical sails, I suggest doing a thorough job of the aero undertray first.

When many other teams also have good undertrays, then you might start thinking about, oh, say..... extending those four wheel-pods upwards, multi-flapping them, and steering them......
~~~o0o~~~

All those classic cars, and none of them yet driveable.... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Due to some poor "life decisions" I have the better preserved cars stored in my uncompleted house, while I live in a rented hovel! Better get busy laying more bricks...
~~~~~~~~~~o0o~~~~~~~~~~

Gruntguru,

Picture an end view of the car, and a rectangular box as wide as the car, going from ground up to the sky. Now imagine a planar wing (seen edge on) spanning that box from side-to-side, but at any angle. Obviously the closer to vertical the wing is, the longer it is, and the more aero force that it can generate.

Now what is the "optimal" angle of this wing?

I'd say that the vertical component of force is constant (because the wing spans side-to-side), but the horizontal component increases indefinitely as the wing gets closer to vertical.

But I would NOT want really tall sails on a gusty day.

Also, when generating "lift" these sails will also suffer from vortex drag (unlike the undertray). This drag could be used to deliberately slow the car for corner entry, countering nose down pitch from the normal brakes, while the "lift" initiates cornering by leaning the car inwards. All this started by the driver pressing the "left" or "right" button on the steering wheel...

Z

theTTshark

02-26-2012, 07:16 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bob.paasch:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by theTTshark:
It's funny that the tracks are so aero unfriendly considering we are building cars for SCCA Autocrosses. In case you haven't seen one, think of a course on concrete big enough that even Corvettes can stretch their legs, and you have the SCCA National Championships. In fact I challenge any non-aero car to come to that event and try to win it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From the 2012 FSAE rules:

"A1.1.1 To give teams the maximum design flexibility and the freedom to express their creativity and
imaginations there are very few restrictions on the overall vehicle design. The challenge to teams is to
develop a vehicle that can successfully compete in all the events described in the FSAE Rules. The
competitions themselves give teams the chance to demonstrate and prove both their creativity and
their engineering skills in comparison to teams from other universities around the world."

We are not building cars for SCCA autocross. We are building cars for FSAE/FS competitions. Most of those competitions take place at venues without the room to build a SCCA Nationals course.

I have no problem with a team deciding to build a car to compete at the SCCA Nationals, but IMHO they then lose the right to complain about tight FSAE/FS courses. The FSAE/FS course are what they are, if you want to win, design to those courses. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I completely understand that there are specific rules for the courses that we run, and I understand why these rules exist. I understand that we have to take into account space limitations, but better courses have been made in spaces even more limited than what the Michigan and the old California venues are. I should also correct my previous sentiments about the difference between SCCA and FSAE courses. It isn't just the speed of the tracks (because sometimes the courses we run average out to around 35mph), but what is quite possibly more important than that is the flow of the courses. Last year's California course is a perfect example of random corners being thrown in just to produce a "FSAE" course. I think what we're going to see is that even in the existing rules of how courses can be constructed we're going to get courses that are much more fluid than ever before. At least that's my hope.

Besides that we also have rules like C4.1.1 that indicate we are indeed, at least from a marketing perspective, producing these cars for the SCCA.

C4.1.1 The objective of the presentation event is to evaluate the team’s ability to develop and deliver a
comprehensive business case that will convince the executives of a corporation that the team’s design
best meets the demands of the amateur, weekend competition market, including Sports Car Club of
America (SCCA) Solo, and that it can be profitably manufactured and marketed. (See also A1.2)

Granted this is just for presentation, but it instills the point that we are building SCCA autocross cars. The rules that you cite indicates that we are building cars for FSAE competitions. Here would be my counter-point to your analysis of rule A1.1.1: If the business aspect of FSAE is to build a car for SCCA autocross, doesn't that indicate that we should at least take SCCA autocrosses into account? Obviously many will say no, but still it raises interesting talking points about the way these events could head in the future.

I normally wouldn't write a response this long but I find that your last paragraph is a bit condescending (maybe not in intent but certainly in writing over the internet), so I feel especially driven to write a full response. I have no problem with someone disagreeing with my opinions regarding Formula SAE course design (or anything for that matter because at the end of the day everything is just an opinion except for the basic rules of nature), but we're always going to have people complaining about this and that especially in a competitive event like racing. It is not our job as engineers to say to those complaining that they do not have the right to complain, but it is our job to investigate and discuss these outside options to potentially find solutions to problems we hadn't thought of ourselves. I find that in every complaint, there is at the bottom of it, a problem, even if it is microscopic. As I have discussed above, the courses are what they are not because of the rules, but because of poor course design and implementation. At it's core this is indeed complaining, but on another level this leads to a discussion about where the future of courses can lead even within current rule sets. Which could lead to courses that are arguably easier for everybody to drive. I think the point here is, yes we all can't have it our way, but we are all entitled to our opinions. That's why I'm so interested in why you believe that my opinion should be silenced.

BTW, I believe that at least on a dynamics level we have proven that we can win or come close to winning on these autocross tracks, as your team has as well.

Fantomas

02-27-2012, 12:47 AM

Don't get me started on course design.
Some of the FSAE/FS course designers really just throw them together without even driving them themselves. So they have no chance of getting rid of passages which are not fluent etc.
The hard 90° turn at FSAE-MI2011 was probably one of the best examples for this.
It also seems as if some of the competitions do not care about rule compliance of the course.
Track widths are to narrow, slaloms to short, etc.
Track safety is another thing, that should be mentioned: Fire extinguishers miles away, no radio for the marshals, marshal posts at the most dangerous places or walls of shame/little monaco kind of setups.

There is a lot room for improvement.

Fantomas

ed_pratt

02-27-2012, 05:12 AM

Mike Cook

02-27-2012, 06:23 PM

I pretty much agree with Scott and Kevin entirely. Not much to argue about.

The Downforce advantage of a single cylinder outweighs the power advantage of the a 4cylinder car. It will be interesting to see how our tr12 car compares to the tr11. The TR12 certainly has more downforce, but far less power. With out a boosted engine, i'm not convinced it will beat the TR11 car on a SCCA course.

Z,

I like the way you think outside the box, but, just because people don't post all of their calculations, doesn't me they didn't do them...

bob.paasch

02-27-2012, 06:43 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by theTTshark:
I normally wouldn't write a response this long but I find that your last paragraph is a bit condescending (maybe not in intent but certainly in writing over the internet), so I feel especially driven to write a full response. I have no problem with someone disagreeing with my opinions regarding Formula SAE course design (or anything for that matter because at the end of the day everything is just an opinion except for the basic rules of nature), but we're always going to have people complaining about this and that especially in a competitive event like racing. It is not our job as engineers to say to those complaining that they do not have the right to complain, but it is our job to investigate and discuss these outside options to potentially find solutions to problems we hadn't thought of ourselves. I find that in every complaint, there is at the bottom of it, a problem, even if it is microscopic. As I have discussed above, the courses are what they are not because of the rules, but because of poor course design and implementation. At it's core this is indeed complaining, but on another level this leads to a discussion about where the future of courses can lead even within current rule sets. Which could lead to courses that are arguably easier for everybody to drive. I think the point here is, yes we all can't have it our way, but we are all entitled to our opinions. That's why I'm so interested in why you believe that my opinion should be silenced.

BTW, I believe that at least on a dynamics level we have proven that we can win or come close to winning on these autocross tracks, as your team has as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry that you felt my last paragraph was condescending, that was not my intent.

For many years the FSAE rules read differently:

"1.2 Vehicle Design Objectives

For the purposes of this competition, the students are to assume that a manufacturing firm has engaged them to design, fabricate and demonstrate a prototype car for evaluation as a production item. The intended sales market is the nonprofessional weekend autocross racer...."

Some people complained about the premise. Some, like you, felt the FSAE autocross course should be representative of an SCCA course. Others felt fuel economy/efficiency an unnecessary part of the competition, after all, weekend autocrossers don't care about fuel economy.

What did SAE do? They dropped the above wording, and replaced it, making the purpose of the competition explicit. You are designing cars for FSAE dynamic events.

Of course they kept the "weekend autocrosser" premise for the presentation, the market for selling cars to other FSAE teams is pretty small (actually, given the rules, precisely zero http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ).

To tell the truth, when I think of the cars that Kansas has brought to competition, I see cars that are designed to win FSAE competitions. They also happen to be good at SCCA autocross. Not the other way around.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled pot stirring.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Z:
So, all FSAE aero students;

1. Get that picture of the "high rear wing" out of your minds.

2. "Streamline" your car (good for Fuel Efficiency ). Try a central cigar shaped fuselage, and add four tear-drop shaped wheel-pods at the corners. (And as long as there is nothing specific against these wheel-pods in the rules, DO NOT accept any arbitrary "spirit of the rules" bulldust bans from the scrutineers.)

3. Generate ALL your downforce from an "aero undertray". This approach is relatively lightweight, it lowers CG, and it generates negligible drag for tyre popping downforce (the rotating wheels will give more drag).
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Easy to pontificate from the armchair, but in practice, very difficult to implement. Aero undertrays on FSAE cars are complicated by:

1) inability to use any kind of side skirt to seal the sides
2) typically rough FSAE autocross and endurance surfaces that cause a lot of variation in vertical distance to ground for sprung undertrays
3) nasty vehicle dynamics considerations for unsprung undertrays
4) high yaw rates means that when you need the downforce, the air is coming in at an off angle. This complicates simulation (you now need a full car model) and becomes nearly impossible to physically validate under controlled conditions.

Now back to the original question:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kevin Hayward:
I thought I would post this as some positive feedback. It appears that the recent changes to the rules have improved FSAE quite a lot. I am mainly referring to the aerodynamic changes allowing sharper trailing edges, more plan area, and moving wings. A couple of main design considerations have changed:

- After removing most of the advantages for 4 cylinder engines through more points to fuel economy, aero returns some of that advantage by allowing teams with more power to take advantage of more downforce (due to being able to carry more drag). The recent changes have made it possible for cars to have too much drag relative to the power, which is a good thing. This might have a side effect of more teams trying to do custom engines.

- Aero development simply can't be ignored now. While teams may not decide to make aero packages some of their competitors will. As a result teams almost by default have to consider whether or not to run aero, rather than dismissing the possibility all together. Aero should be more prominent in design discussions. This is good as a fundamental area of mechanical engineering is in the forefront of students minds.

- for cars that go aero weight is now even more important, given that your downforce divided by your car weight will be the grip modifier.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In my opinion, the new aero rules go too far. I think there was already a substantial advantage to aero under the old rules. Most teams declined to do aero due to logistical considerations. Under the new rules, again IMHO, aero is going to be necessary (but not sufficient) to win a major competition. The better teams will adjust, the lesser teams will fall further behind. Anyone can run CFD, but there will be an even larger advantage to teams with wind tunnel access.

That said, we're of course working on bigger wings. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kevin Hayward

02-27-2012, 10:19 PM

Bob,

That last sentence will scare a lot of teams. I guess we are all secretly hoping that GFR fall into the group of successful teams that fall due to not wanting to change their winning formula.

Kev

Scott Wordley

02-28-2012, 01:00 AM

Going way back to Kev's comments, I agree on nearly all points you made.

The rest of the field does make a big difference to the spread and should be accounted for. The margins do narrow with a very fast 4 taking down accel. I still think there should be a reasonable margin in the fuel used between a 4 and a single produced by the same team, for us it was a little over 1L. I think it would probably be similar for most teams, even across different levels of engine development expertise.

I completely agree that teams can still score very highly (and even win on occasion) with a car that is very far from the theoretical optimum, but I am not considering those factors in this discussion. Just trying to imagine what the highest scoring car that you could realistically build for this competition would look like, without concerning ourselves with boring limitations, timelines and resources.

Z, I have to agree with some points and disagree on others. While "high downforce does not have to imply high drag" all too often it works out that way due to the other restrictions we face in the design of these vehicles (package space, integration, CG height issues, weight etc). For example, rather than use a multielement wing (CL =4) I could run a single element wing (CL =1) but I would have to make it maybe twice the plan area and double the span. It just not possible within the rules, and besides it would weigh more and increase our cg height (if it were a high mount rear wing). When designing aero for these cars you quickly realise that you are designing less for "efficiency" and more for "effectiveness". A wing that is twice as efficient is frequently half as effective.

You are correct about Carroll Smith saying "Aero cars will dominate", about 10 years ago. He was talking about our 2002 car (the first with full diffuser and unsprung wings) when he said it. I recorded it and put it in this video(about 2mins in) if anyone is interested in watching it: (excuse the drum and bass, or rock out... your choice)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkuwIW_Wp3U

I'm pretty sure I met you (Z) briefly you at this comp as well, I had a Blue mohawk at the time (like the entire rest of the team!)

Speaking of high mounted wings, they are a necessary evil. I like the aero ideas you put forward with your twin beam wing design, particularly the front but I seriously doubt the rear is going to make much DF as it is in the wake of the front. If we get a chance we will run some quick sims on it to check. The flow coming off the front wing ends up at driver head height, leaving only dead air near the rear wheels. This is evident in the problems aero teams have getting radiators to work down there. It also means the diffuser doesn't work as good at the back. If you cant bring clean air in from the sides, you have to go high (as you cant go wider). The more aggressive your front wing the higher you have to go which means the more front you need etc etc. I predict biplane front wings will make an appearance in the future to try and remedy this imbalance. At first glance it may appear that we are simply mimicking real race cars, but in fact we don't have much choice (or none that I can see).

We have thought about Wheel pods in the past, but don't run them because the front wing covers the front wheels and the radiators cover the rear wheels.

Would you believe we even thought about the tailfin/steerable sails that you proposed, way back in 2002. We reasoned that any sail side force created would incur an equivalent drag to that of a traditional down forcing wing. The downforcing wing however has the advantage of the CoF multiplier, hence is more efficient way to "spend" that drag. Common sense kicked in when we started thinking about optimising it through dynamic roll angle adjustment (as discussed here) and we decided to focus on more pressing problems of getting a car built and tested!

Drag Reduction Systems may in fact be a wank. On the other hand they may be a very easy and reliable points gain, for an investment of $200 and about a weeks work. The devil with this one is in the details, which is why we have built and tunnel tested a system and are now experimenting with it on track. In our first test we found it was super easy for the driver to actuate it via a button on the wheel, so we will not bother with any computer logic control like Sooner used. The car pulls really hard in a straight line again (for the first time) which is great. If we get a track with a lot of straight lines (or softly curving ones) then I cant see how it wont be a benefit. Consider that with full wing we are hitting terminal speed in SLALOMS of around 16m spacing.

Unlike F1 we can actuate as much of our wing as we like (front included) and for as long as we like. Granted our straights are not as long, but I think we would use it for a larger proportion of the lap than they are allowed. Hardly mindless mimicking http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif but I understand you are just stirring us up. In this respect I agree with Mike's quote:

"just because people don't post all of their calculations, doesn't me they didn't do them"
I'm sure Maryland have been through all this and ten times more, but don't necessarily want to talk about it as much as some.

I agree with Bob's comments on the problems associated with under trays. We are trying to validate (or otherwise) ours at the moment and it is a nightmare, even with 64 channels of high speed pressure tapping. If we manage to make something of the data it might appear at the SAE congress in 2013.

Also I think Bob's comment is spot on:
"Under the new rules, again IMHO, aero is going to be necessary (but not sufficient) to win a major competition."

The thought of GFR coming back with bigger wings is going to keep me awake at night...
Perhaps non-aero teams should start sharpening their knives? :P

Scott

Kevin Hayward

02-28-2012, 02:15 AM

Scott,

Great points as usual. I think the question shouldn't be 1 vs 4 cylinders, rather it should be light vs. heavy engines. The highest performance FSAE engine is still to be made. Resource allocation issues may mean it never gets made.

We still saw in Australia that UWA outscored Monash on dynamic events. Both teams had cars that had been running for quite a while, both with great driver teams, which if we counted all competing drivers I would say Monash's was better. I still agree that the Monash concept is probably theoretically better given the points sims we have run.

The fuel use difference is another interesting question. I would accept about 1L between a single and a 4 with both on full tilt. However the 4 teams are moving towards conserving fuel in endurance, while the singles have more need to wring the power out. I would say given different comp strategies the difference would be smaller. I think we saw some of this in Australia, and some with what Stuttgart has been doing in endurance.

We have had a brief look at the strategy behind different concepts and there does appear to be two main ways to gain a slight advantage:

1. Gain the points that the main competition ignores. Having a different car to the bulk of the main players in a given comp means you have a window to uncontested points.

2. Lead early. This both puts pressure on your competitors (forcing errors), as well as setting you up for any change in conditions.

At the moment this still favours the lightweight high aero car, which has the potential to lead early (being one of the higher performance concepts) and as well being the odd one out.

Still doesn't give an explanation for the UWA dynamic win in Australia.

Kev

02-28-2012, 04:17 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kevin Hayward:
... Still doesn't give an explanation for the UWA dynamic win in Australia.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Kev,

Hmmmmm...., err...., maybe.... it's because they've got an.....
aero undertray???

Oh, yes...., and also a....
soft twist-mode???

(Yes, I know, that doesn't prove anything... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)
~~~o0o~~~

And as Mike says, UWA are certainly not going to promote those ideas here, in public!

(Maybe I'd best shut up now. Sorry Pete.)
~~~o0o~~~

Scott, my mohawk is a lot greyer now. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Z

Lorenzo Pessa

02-28-2012, 05:27 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Z:
2. "Streamline" your car (good for Fuel Efficiency http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif). Try a central cigar shaped fuselage, and add four tear-drop shaped wheel-pods at the corners. (And as long as there is nothing specific against these wheel-pods in the rules, DO NOT accept any arbitrary "spirit of the rules" bulldust bans from the scrutineers.)

3. Generate ALL your downforce from an "aero undertray". This approach is relatively lightweight, it lowers CG, and it generates negligible drag for tyre popping downforce (the rotating wheels will give more drag).
~~~o0o~~~
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Z,
first of all I apologize because I didn't found the time to answer when you post your concept (ok, I also red several posts of this topic too fast! sorry, too busy at work).
I found it interesting but I not sure that aero package can work so well (there is a bluff body inside the wing and a hole between lower and upper surface). That's only a "chat", it need at least a CFD sim to find out what happen.

About you "aero undertray" don't forget that undertray and rear wing work together. You can improve your undertray performance with a rear wing.
I remember Sophia ran with an undertray and a rear wing.

The sail car is less foul as one can imagine. They are good if you don't need to steer so much. I'm not sure it would be easy to manage it on a FSAE track.
Is Russell Coutts eligible to drive a Formula SAE?

bob.paasch

02-28-2012, 09:50 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kevin Hayward:
The fuel use difference is another interesting question. I would accept about 1L between a single and a 4 with both on full tilt. However the 4 teams are moving towards conserving fuel in endurance, while the singles have more need to wring the power out. I would say given different comp strategies the difference would be smaller. I think we saw some of this in Australia, and some with what Stuttgart has been doing in endurance.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

While Stuttgart has made significant progress, TU Munich is the team that has really trimmed their fuel usage this last year. 3,4 liters at FSG, and 3,2 at Michigan. But the single teams certainly aren't ignoring fuel. ETS won design at California last year because of their engine development. They won endurance whilst using 2,3 liters of fuel. That's still a liter and about a 30-40 point advantage over the most fuel efficient fast 4s.

I see Munich and Stuttgart have entered FSUK as E85 cars. That will give them another 10-15% in fuel.

Scott Wordley

02-28-2012, 06:59 PM

Kev,

Consider that UWA actually used less fuel than us in Aus. I would also mention that the Aus track was particularly aero unfriendly this year. We are also a lot heavier than what is theoretically achieveable for an aero single, as it was our first time out with this package and we designed and built in 6 months. So on this basis I wouldn't necessarily consider Monash versus UWA as a fair comparison of these two "concepts".

I think there is much more room for improvement on our end, while I think the current UWA/Munich/Stutgartt cars are about as close to as good as a 4 cylinder non-aero cars can get.

I am pretty sure some of the good engine tech teams could comfortably go under 2L fuel used, if they switched to a single, possibly whilst running wings.

We are planning on going E85 as well, but didn't have time to get it set up for Europe. It does appear to provide a reliable increase in Fuel Economy.

Regarding the highest performance engine being yet to made made... if anyone thinks they can do better than the major bike manufacturers then please be my guest! Consider talking to teams like WWU, Melbourne Uni, Aachen(?) and Auckland who have gone down this route and see what their advice is. Look up their historical scores as well. Once you finish your bespoke engine please calculate the differential in points scored compared to what you achieved running an off the shelf engine, and then divide that by the amount of time, money and resources you have invested. Interested in what that "number" would look like and if it would be positive. Historically speaking, I think it is more commonly negative.

Kevin Hayward

02-28-2012, 10:23 PM

Scott,

Please don't mistake my queries for an attack on the concept.

I agree that UWA's car is about as good as that current concept currently is and Monash are only at the beginning (especially with a new engine). I was genuinely surprised that UWA won the dynamics. Unless I am mistaken the last time the Monash concept (only with less aero and a four) went up against the UWA concept where both competed(2009), Monash was the comfortable dynamic winner. Clearly on average in 2011 Monash had the better driving squad based on lap times. We could probably say that UWA's engine was better developed, as was their mechanical grip. But on the other hand very few teams develop Aero as well as Monash. Did we see mechanical grip and engine development trump better aero? With further development I expect Monash would have a much better dynamic scoring car (which does worry me). But I also expected them to have the edge in 2011.

The track at Australia was ridiculous. They had a problem with getting barriers in time so designed the most twisty and cone filled course that has been run at Werribee. No team was more disappointed at this than ECU. On the other hand it does make a case for non-aero teams to be a bit happier with their design choices. Aero teams do want reasonable course design to perform their best. Monash also lost the dynamics on the back of hitting far too many cones. While the cone hitting issue of wings is not as bad as some would believe, it still exists.

I agree with the resource allocation arguments related to custom engines. But it doesn't change the fact that engine development is more valuable now. Aero has made weight much more important, and the rules have made economy more important. I would expect to see new engines at least in the form of heavily modified bike engines; maybe new cases with original head and internals. The main problem with existing bike engines is packaging, leading to increased weight. Engines are still worth less than mechanical grip and aero in terms of performance, but the changes to the rules have made it more inviting. If a team can find and manage the resources effectively they have a chance to pull out an advantage. I would have easily dismissed a custom engine previously, but now I wonder if a longer term design program might be worth it to teams, especially those that already have good engine development backgrounds. I don't think the small number of custom engines we have seen so far is anything but the early stages of this line of development.

Regardless I think we are in for interesting developments in the next few years, as it is pretty clear the goalpost has changed.

Kev

Bemo

02-29-2012, 06:47 AM

sbrenaman

02-29-2012, 02:11 PM

The Dallara DW12 is still an 'open wheeled' car. It competes in 'open wheel' racing...

Could maybe even argue (and prove) that they served to help mitigate tire-to-tire contact and absorb energy in side and rear impacts.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-azdbEF93ye8/TryG77wWGOI/AAAAAAAAHMU/yNyxaBGomSQ/s1600/Dallara%2BDW12%2B-%2BPhoto%2Bby%2BRon%2BMcQueeney.jpg

Pete Marsh

02-29-2012, 04:15 PM

I'm still waiting to see a descent clarification on the wheel covering thing. I think we need one, and after Aus '11, I'm surprised nothing has been done.
Yes I know there is already a clarification, but it makes all the traditional aero cars illegal, and clearly they are being allowed to run, so it would seem there is plenty of "interpretation" even in the "clarification". (it says you must be able to see the tyres in plan view).

This can be easily circumvented anyway, it would just cause another hassle at comp, but still, we might just show up with fully covered wheels that meet ALL the rules!!! AND then complain that we can't see Monash's, ECU's etc rear tyres in plan view!

The Aus comp fuel economy points call for covered wheels IMO, (if going with a low drag 4 cyl) and if the organizers don't want that, then make a rule that stops it. SCCA, FIA, etc have managed to.

Pete

02-29-2012, 06:27 PM

Lorenzo,

Yes, as you say, an "undertray and rear wing work together". And they work especially well if they are close-coupled. That is, if the "wing" is just above and behind the rear edge of the undertray. But I would now call that "wing" the "undertray flap".

All FSAE aero students should note that an undertray with DIFFUSER ONLY is just the first step to large downforce.

In aeronautics a single element aerofoil will only generate Cl up to about ~1.5 before stalling. For much higher Cls the wing needs slots, or flaps. See Handley-Page experiments, early 1900s, multi-slotted wing (~8 elements?) with Cl=~4 (more slots gave more Cl).

So add one or two+ flaps to the back of your undertray, and watch downforce+++! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
~~~o0o~~~

Bemo,

You say, "First of all the rules clearly say that the car has to be "open-wheeled". Of course there is a grey area were this starts and ends.
But what I'm really interested in is how you want to not accept if scrutineers don't allow it."

Well the sad fact of life that you will soon have to learn, even as engineers, is that there will be times in your careers when you have to (to use Monty Burns' words) "unleash the hounds", ie. call in the laywers. (Eg. Microsoft didn't get to where they are today by writing better software. They just used their lawyers more aggressively. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif)

I don't like it. But if you have spent too long arguing with the scrutineers that "there is nothing in the rules against it", and they still want to ban you, then I suggest passing them your mobile phone with your school's legal representative on the other end. Your "rottweiler" lets them know that "the entire future income prospects of all our team members (ie. mega-million$$$) depends on our team being allowed to compete, fairly and to the same rules as all the other teams, in this competition. Blah, blah, .... we'll sue the pants off you,... blah, blah, blah..."

Like I say, I don't like that sort of thing. But frankly, the teams' efforts are now very professional, whereas the organisation of FSAE seems to remain very amateurish. They need a kick up the bum, to help lift their game.

Put simply, to the organizers of FSAE, either let the "interesting" cars run, or else write the rules properly!

And, as Scott B notes above, those Indy cars are "podded" because it is better for safety and fuel economy!
~~~o0o~~~

Regarding "aero sideforce", this has been in use for a long time on Speedway cars that carry the huge central "roof-wings", with equally huge side plates. Since these cars spend a lot of time at about a 45 degree slip-angle, their aero sideforce is sometimes seen to roll the cars INTO the corners. Or, perhaps a better description is that the air grabs hold of the high mounted wing, and the bottom of the car swings outward.

Z

Boffin

02-29-2012, 08:30 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sbrenaman:
The Dallara DW12 is still an 'open wheeled' car. It competes in 'open wheel' racing...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
There is a lot of misconception about those rears pods, originating from speculation I believe.

The number 1 reason those rear pods are on the new Indy cars, is to stop front and rear wheels interlocking if cars bang together. Hence making them safer.

As a side effect/consequence there is an aero improvement (good engineering design in the shape), but ultimately they were on the car regardless.

sbrenaman

02-29-2012, 11:09 PM

What is the idea for requiring the cars to be open wheeled anyway?

It would be very interesting to see if we could arrive at a rules set that saw exciting competition between a lighter Open-Wheeled car and a heavier Le-Mans or Daytona Protype style car.

Fantomas

03-01-2012, 01:43 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Like I say, I don't like that sort of thing. But frankly, the teams' efforts are now very professional, whereas the organisation of FSAE seems to remain very amateurish. They need a kick up the bum, to help lift their game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Z,
as I understand you are not a student anymore but are also not involved as a volunteer or otherwise in any FSAE organization comittee. In that case I would expect you to change that instead of complaining.

Regarding the lawyer stuff: If the respective scrutineer has any balls, he would not mind. FSAE Rule A3.10 gives him the power to do whatever he thinks is appropriate.

Fantomas

RenM

03-01-2012, 05:37 AM

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

Well the sad fact of life that you will soon have to learn, even as engineers, is that there will be times in your careers when you have to (to use Monty Burns' words) "unleash the hounds", ie. call in the laywers. (Eg. Microsoft didn't get to where they are today by writing better software. They just used their lawyers more aggressively. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And there is a point in life where you learn that one can not always get one´s way with brute force.
The Scrutineers have many ways to make your life VERY uncomfortable, like inspections of your engines displacement which in a lot of cars means removing the engine from the car e.g. Of course they usually wont let you do this, but thats only because its not their intent to cause you trouble. However trying to really piss of a scrutineer, especially with something as ridiculous as a lawyer, might not be a very clever idea in the end. And i dont think any scrutineer will have anything of this lawyer talk in the first place.

Bemo

03-01-2012, 06:16 AM

And you shouldn't forget that there is the "intent of the rule". The rules set gives the organisers the power to interpret the rules. So even if you would really want to send in your lawyers I doubt you would be succesful with that.
Especially because of the point RenM already threw in. If I were your scrutineer and you would argument like that, you definitely wouldn't have a nice time. If you really want to, you will always find issues on any FSAE car.

There is still the very old rule. If you enter some "grey area" of the rules, ask the rules commitee about it. If you do so, you know wether it will be accepted or not.

I agree with you that this particular rule needs additional clearification, as the best thing is, if there is nothing to argue about. I personally wouldn't have a problem with it, if the rule would just be erased as I don't see any safety issues and it would increase the freedom in the designing process.

rjwoods77

03-01-2012, 08:02 AM

"Regarding "aero sideforce", this has been in use for a long time on Speedway cars that carry the huge central "roof-wings", with equally huge side plates. Since these cars spend a lot of time at about a 45 degree slip-angle, their aero sideforce is sometimes seen to roll the cars INTO the corners. Or, perhaps a better description is that the air grabs hold of the high mounted wing, and the bottom of the car swings outward."

Z[/QUOTE]

Seeing a World of Outlaw race made me wonder if these rednecks actually understood how they make those cars produce the herculean feats that they achieve or if it was just sheer balls of trying things out. Its something else to see the inside rear tire wrinkle up like a drag tire when the car is pitched sideways at a 100mph.

Super Modified used to have the coolest design solutions to the problems at hand and like always were banned for being too smart....

http://www.jakessite.com/07/re/index.htm

http://web.a-znet.com/~dave1w/shampine.htm (http://web.a-znet.com/%7Edave1w/shampine.htm)

http://www.jimmyjeep.com/4x4.html

http://www.jakessite.com/07/re/crmfillipchet.htm

http://sitepalace.com/donmichael/reece/reece.html

sbrenaman,

It would be nice to have full freedom and let the concepts prove themselves out of open wheel,closed wheel and hybrid wheel such as this...

http://www.race-cars.com/carso.../m832c1/m832c1pp.htm (http://www.race-cars.com/carsold/march/m832c1/m832c1pp.htm)

Can Am in its reduced cost 2 liter format ended up being wheel hybrid wheel Formula 2 cars.

mech5496

03-01-2012, 10:43 AM

Funny thing what came up on Speedhunters...
http://speedhunters.com/archiv...ngs-and-prayers.aspx (http://speedhunters.com/archive/2012/02/29/retrospective-gt-gt-game-changers-wings-and-prayers.aspx)

sbrenaman

03-01-2012, 01:25 PM

RJW - I am hoping for something more like this, but open cockpit http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://newcarupdate.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Red-Bull-X1-prototype-for-Gran-Turismo-5-photo1.jpg

Gruntguru

03-01-2012, 08:42 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pete Marsh:
I'm still waiting to see a descent clarification on the wheel covering thing. I think we need one, and after Aus '11, I'm surprised nothing has been done.
Yes I know there is already a clarification, but it makes all the traditional aero cars illegal, and clearly they are being allowed to run, so it would seem there is plenty of "interpretation" even in the "clarification". (it says you must be able to see the tyres in plan view).

This can be easily circumvented anyway, it would just cause another hassle at comp, but still, we might just show up with fully covered wheels that meet ALL the rules!!! AND then complain that we can't see Monash's, ECU's etc rear tyres in plan view!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>I am wondering too. Any further clarification available yet Pat?

Fantomas

03-02-2012, 04:00 PM

There is no need for a clarification in my opinion. The rule is pretty clear.

If a part is built with the sole intent to cover the wheels, it is prohibited. If you are somehow able to use your front wing or side pods to cover parts of the wheels, smart move.

Who prevents a team from just asking the rules committee, if they have a particular solution in mind?

Fantomas

luxsosis

03-02-2012, 05:27 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fantomas:
There is no need for a clarification in my opinion. The rule is pretty clear.

Fantomas </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What number rule are you talking about here?

PatClarke

03-02-2012, 05:29 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I am wondering too. Any further clarification available yet Pat? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

GG, I don't speak for the rules committee.

Fantomas, I agree with you.

The rule has been interpreted forever as 'The wheel must be fully visible in plan view'. The red herring 'Awe, but the wings get in the way of 'plan view' fails to take into account the plane of view. It all depends where you are 'viewing' from.

Taking Z's stance of 'Cover the wheels and argue that the rule is wrong' is the easiest way I know to relegate your team to the role of spectators!

And, yes, if any team think they see a loophole, then get it clarified by the Rules committee. That's what they are there for.

Literally hundreds of rule clarifications come in each year. The Rules Committee keeps the teams request confidential, that's why you don't hear about them.

Cheers

Pat

edit, spelling =]

03-02-2012, 05:50 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fantomas:
There is no need for a clarification in my opinion. The rule is pretty clear.

If a part is built with the sole intent to cover the wheels, it is prohibited. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

INTENT!!! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif (And what rule???)

Student Aero Guy, "But our intent is to have a more efficient car. You know, better fuel economy. Err..., and also better safety... And, err,.... there's no rule against it...."

Fantomas The Scrutineer, "Rubbish! Your INTENT is to CHEAT!!! You are banned. Go away..."

Students' Rottweiler, eyeing Fantomas, thinks, "I'm eating well tonight! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif "
~~~o0o~~~

FSAE Rule A3.10?

Rottweilers can't read (they don't need to), but if they did..., " http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif "

Think about it.

Legal team from average size University that turns over N billion$ per year and values a full trophy cabinet (academic, sporting, whatever prizes),

versus

amateur scrutineer.

Z

(Edit: Just saw Pat's post.
Pat, if this issue (it is NOT a "rule") "has been interpreted forever...", then why doesn't it appear explicitly in the Rules?
And why isn't the mysterious "plain (plane?) of view" also made explicit in the Rules?
You are defending the indefensible.
The Rules need fixing.)

Pete Marsh

03-02-2012, 06:53 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The rule has been interpreted forever as 'The wheel must be fully visible in plan view'. The red herring 'Awe, but the wings get in the way of 'plan view' fails to take into account the plain of view. It all depends where you are 'viewing' from. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you have made my point quite well thanks Pat. It would be kind of nice if this place that inspectors will "view" from, was public knowledge. This would assist in achieving designs matching inspectors expectations. My mistake was interpreting "plan view" as being the view perpendicular to the horizontal plain. The intent of the clarification would suggest the word "plan" fully specifies the view point, but if my definition is incorrect, what is the correct one?

A quick, and not very thorough, check of some "open wheel" rule sets reveals NONE that allow rear wings to cover the rear tyres! Most, do in fact require some portion of the top of the all 4 tyres to be visible in "plan view",from above, or in top view.

Rules clarifications are published (although a little hard to find) for the benefit of all involved.

A10.4 Frequently Asked Questions
Before submitting a question, check the Frequently Asked Questions section of the Formula SAE Forum website.

Still, it would seem another clarification needs to be sent in.

Pete

PS - Sorry for being part of hijacking your good thread Kev, but this is sort if the effect of changing some of the rules, without considering how they will be reacted to. With 125 points for fuel, low drag and coast was always going to be worth a go.

Fantomas

03-03-2012, 03:29 AM

Z,
I don't know in which banana-republic-like events you have gained this experience, but I can assure you that at all competitions in which I have attended the scrutineers gave a sh** about university's opinion regarding the rules and that is how it should be!
Although I found it a bit scary that the indian team was allowed to run at FSAE-A2011 as it didn't seem to be completely rules compliant...

Your interpretation of the intent is absurd as it could be broken down to the intent always wanting to build a car which is able to win the competition...

As said before, if a team is unsure, it may just ask the rules committee by handing in a request showing the planned solution.

The clarification which Pat mentioned is clear and does not render any aero cars illegal which were allowed to compete.

Pete,
in my opinion it does not matter what all the other rules sets for open-wheeled cars say as they do not matter, when you are building a car for an FSAE event.

I wonder, if you handed in a question to the rules committee showing your exact solution before the FSAE-A 2011 competition. If not, you should stop complaining about it, I think.

Maybe the respective rule could be written more specific, but it seems like most of the other teams got the intention of the rule right in the past couple of years as it is very improbable that none of them has ever thought about covering the front wheels with a solution like yours. At least that should have made you thinking about it.

Fantomas

TMichaels

03-03-2012, 03:40 AM

From an organizer's point of view I can only agree with what Fantomas said about scrutineering.
At FSG we have never and will never let a university's lawyer have any influence on scrutineering.

The universities have no power over the organising bodies and should have no power, otherwise the competition would be a farce.

To put it in a nutshell:
I am very curious to hear at which competition you think that a call from a lawyer will change the outcome of scrutineering.

03-03-2012, 04:49 AM

While the pot is on the boil...

1. Lawyers only come sniffing around when they smell money. FSAE is becoming more professional...

2. FSAE is a small game played under the umbrella of our larger societies. Our societies have their own "rules", and their own methods of enforcing these rules (eg. fines, gaol, the "chair" http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ).

3. Like it or not, some of the rules of most of our societies are about "discrimination". Unjustified (and even, too often these days, justified!) discrimination against person, team, whatever..., can be very expensive.

4. The banning of UWA's front wheel pods, covering a small fraction of each front wheel in "plan view", while allowing the other teams' completely covered rear wheels, was plain UNFAIR (and narrow minded, stupid, etc.). It could also clearly be seen as discriminatory, and thus subject to the penalties of our larger societies' legal systems.

5. To the scrutineers, I am helping you here! (Not sure why?) If you keep thinking that you can arbitrarily and unjustifiably push certain teams around, just because you see yourselves as the "big kids" in the playground, then, as the profile of FSAE increases, you had better watch out! (I suggest you sign over all your assets to relatives. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

Z

nowhere fast

03-04-2012, 04:02 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fantomas:
There is no need for a clarification in my opinion. The rule is pretty clear. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How so?

The term open wheel is not defined anywhere in the rules.
Even the unofficial clarification can be easily circumvented by making wheel pods out of clear plastic rather than UWA yellow.

03-04-2012, 04:20 AM

May as well add one more. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

6. Fantomas says, "FSAE Rule A3.10 gives him (the scrutineer) the power to do whatever he thinks is appropriate."
So, when the scrutineer (perhaps Fantomas?) gets a little bored with the students asking him which specific rule has been contravened, he can just pull a gun out and shoot them! Pop, pop, no more annoying students! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif And, of course, he doesn't have to worry about the school, or anyone else asking questions, because he has "the power"!

Is that what you are after, Fantomas?
~~~o0o~~~

[Sarcasm Mode = Off]

Tobias,

Out of curiosity, would you have banned UWA's car?

If so, could you explain why?

(Ie. what rule was broken, where is this mysterious "plane of view", is it possible to determine a person's "intent", etc.???)

Z

Fantomas

03-04-2012, 05:58 AM

Z,
your arguments are pathetic and it gets worse with every post.

What makes you think that I am a scrutineer?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">4. The banning of UWA's front wheel pods, covering a small fraction of each front wheel in "plan view", while allowing the other teams' completely covered rear wheels, was plain UNFAIR </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Do you have an example for an FSAE car with completely covered rear wheels that was allowed to run? Only pictures count!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Even the unofficial clarification can be easily circumvented by making wheel pods out of clear plastic rather than UWA yellow. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nope, it would break the intention of the rule/clarification. The clarification is not unofficial in my opinion. I suppose every team asking about this or presenting a solution to the rules committee breaking the open-wheel rule should have received it.

Fantomas

PatClarke

03-04-2012, 07:11 AM

Fantomas,

Stop wasting your time =].

When Erik gets into sh*t stirring mode, common sense goes out the window

Pat

Fantomas

03-04-2012, 08:37 AM

Thanks for the hint Pat. I already thought about stopping to honour his crazy posts with replies and I will do so now.

Fantomas

Gruntguru

03-04-2012, 03:37 PM

I'm with Z. I was at FSAE-A and more than one team running a rear wing has completely obscured the rear wheels from overhead view. So yes - rules clarification required.

mdavis

03-04-2012, 03:49 PM

Just to stir the pot some more, there are teams with very large front wings that also appear to cover parts of the front wheels in plan view. And yes, almost all teams running rear wings have at least part of the rear tires covered in plan view by the wing.

Steve_Chung

03-04-2012, 04:48 PM

Kevin,

I really like your last point. In the past I've always thought most teams that ran aero did it for kickers and SCCA (UTA, Kansas), but now it seems to be a focal point in FSAE points development. We're taking it all in as well with our crazy biplanes and high noses. It should be a fun year for the winged teams.

To Z,

Your idea of using the rear wing as a diffuser flap is ingenious! I think there's a team that's trying to pull it off..... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

-Steve
Maryland FSAE

Fantomas

03-05-2012, 12:47 AM

The plan view does not necessarily mean that you are "above" the rear wing with your view point. Some common sense is needed to use the clarification correctly.

Is anyone able to provide pictures of the cars that violate the mentioned clarification in your opinion?

Fantomas

Lorenzo Pessa

03-05-2012, 03:57 AM

[rude mode ON]
Aerodynamics knowledge has evolved in the years, many of you need to get back to the present: we are in 2012, not in the 60s.

From an aerodynamic point of view have you ever ask yourself what happened around a wheel?

Do that and you will find the difference between an open wheel and a closed wheel.

An open-wheel create a lot of inglorious vortexes.

In a closed-wheel you use fairings (or bodywork) to reduce a lot and modify this vortexes (not to cover the wheel from the air).

If you put a rear wing over a rear wheel at 500 mm you still have a lot of basterd vortexes.
If you put a rear wing over a rear wheel at 100 mm or less maybe your wing will not work but you still have a lot of bastard vortexes.

If you cover you front wheel with your front wing, I hope you will check if the wing "tip" vortex is not twisting over your front wheel.
If so it will feed the wheel upper boundary layer and delaying his detach. You will experience a lot of drag.

The open-wheel rule say Mr. Pink have to live with strong bastard vortexes from wheels.
[rude-Tarantino mode OFF]

Gruntguru

03-05-2012, 11:12 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fantomas:
The plan view does not necessarily mean that you are "above" the rear wing with your view point. Some common sense is needed to use the clarification correctly.

Is anyone able to provide pictures of the cars that violate the mentioned clarification in your opinion? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The banned UWA wheel fairings can be viewed here. http://motorsport.mech.uwa.edu...alia-2011/day-6.html (http://motorsport.mech.uwa.edu.au/news/the-competition/australia-2011/day-6.html)
A typical rear wing covering the wheels in plan veiw can be viewed here. http://www.monashmotorsport.com/

Fantomas

03-06-2012, 12:59 AM

Easy:
Put your head 25cm(10inch) above the top of the tire, it is still plan view.
Monash passes, UWA doesn't. Where is this difficult?

Additionally UWA violates rule B12.2.1c: "In plain view, no part of any aerodynamic device, wing, under tray or splitter can be:
c. No wider than the outside of the front tires or rear tires measured at the height of the hubs, whichever is wider." as it can be seen here: http://motorsport.mech.uwa.edu.au/fileadmin/media/gallery/2011/FSAE-A/2011.12.16/website-17.jpg

Fantomas

Lorenzo Pessa

03-06-2012, 01:56 AM

Someone feel the need of a free-from-aero-device box around each wheel...

Kevin Hayward

03-06-2012, 06:07 AM

Fantomas,

The perspective of the photo is a little misleading. The pods were not too wide.

Frankly I think that UWA was pretty hard done by. Vertically not much of the tyre was covered. They had clearly not attempted to cover the whole wheel on the plan view. Instead they were just trying to obscure it from the front view. All said and done the scrutineers should have let them run as is (which is what I had said to a few scrutineers at the comp) and then reworded the rules to meet the desired intent for future competitions.

It should be noted that the scrutineers didn't say to remove the pods entirely. They said they would be fine to pass with the top one inch (or 2) of material removed. The pods would have still largely functioned as designed. This is similar to the sorts of modifications that teams are asked to make due to scrutineer interpretations of some rules. For example ECU was asked to round a flat section of the front endplates despite all minimum radii dimensions being met. If UWA had really believed the pods added valuable performance to the car they would have done the slight modifications they were asked to.

In the long run opening the rules up to allow wheel pods would probably be easier than trying to make strict rule wordings and would make for some interesting design avenues without upsetting the balance of the competition. It also made for a very attractive vehicle.

Kev

Pete Marsh

03-06-2012, 08:53 AM

@ Fantomas
There is no complaint from UWA regarding the 2011 comp in this thread. You may not be aware the scrutineers actually passed the car initially, only for the local rules comity to later rule the pods non compliant. Their requested cut line would have made them not perform as intended, and the students involved had yet to finish their testing to validate the CFD, so we decided to remove them instead. My issue is about what to do THIS year. We were told the issue would be dealt with, thats all, no drama, we will send in another request, because, surprise surprise, we want to reduce drag and turbulent wake as much as we can, so need to know the RULES!

We do have a clarification, but it isn't very clear. Now you have suggested 250mm above the tyre is the height of the reference view plain, and thats fine, but not official, suggested, hinted at, or able to be seen in the stars. So how is one to know?

Does your interpretation only apply to wing elements, or any body/aero part? A quick look at Google images will reveal plenty of historical cars that violate a rectangular box the size of the tyre, extending from hub height up to 250mm above the top of the tyre. Yet they ran without question. There are cars that have wheel shaped cut outs in their end plates, presumably cut so as not to rub on the tyre on full bump, that ran without question. So sorry, that's not the rule.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> A1.1.1 To give teams the maximum design flexibility and the freedom to express their creativity and imaginations there are very few restrictions on the overall vehicle design. The challenge to teams is to develop a vehicle that can successfully compete in all the events described in the FSAE Rules. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the best rule in the book IMO. Some people seem to freak out over different, but really, isn't it the "freak out" cars that make FSAE so cool?

Pete

Fantomas

03-06-2012, 10:39 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A quick look at Google images will reveal plenty of historical cars that violate a rectangular box the size of the tyre, extending from hub height up to 250mm above the top of the tyre. Yet they ran without question. There are cars that have wheel shaped cut outs in their end plates, presumably cut so as not to rub on the tyre on full bump, that ran without question. So sorry, that's not the rule. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pete,
some of you always mention cars that were allowed to run in the past, but no one is actually posting a picture. I am sorry, but I only trust pictures. In addition, I would say, that a cut out in an end-plate is not trying to cover the wheels.

Have you asked for a clarification by telling the rules commitee exactly what you were planning to do?
Because if not, I would suppose that you knew that it was at least in the grey zone.

If covering the wheels will be allowed in the future, the name of the competition has to be changed as I know none "Formula" class which allows covered wheels.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Frankly I think that UWA was pretty hard done by. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Kevin,
do you have an example of a Formula style car with wheel pods?
It may be gray in the rules, but the intention is still clear in my opinion. Otherwise teams would have started doing this years before.
What do you think is the reason that no team has shown up with this solution before? Because they all knew that it would not pass scrutineering.
I also ask you: Was there a specific rule request showing the pod solution?

Fantomas

Bemo

03-06-2012, 01:10 PM

I honestly have to say that when I saw a picture of the UWA car with these devices, I wondered if that would violate the open wheel rule.

Besides that I'm with the people who want a clearer rule. I wouldn't care if wheel covers would just be forbidden or if it would be clearified what is supposed to be a wheel cover.

It's always good to have rules which clearly tell what is allowed and what is not, otherwise you will always have neverending discussion like this.

Back to UWAs car. If I would have planned to build theses covers, I definitely would have sent it to the rules commitee beforehand. It's the same as always, if you enter a "grey area" of the rules and something similar hasn't been done so far, it's quite risky to just taking it to comp and wait what will happen.

And to Z: In a legal point of view decisions made by scrutineers are pretty much the same as decisions made by a referee in any kind of sports. If it turns out that some of these decisions were wrong, you still can't sue him. And do you REALLY believe that any university would send in their lawyers because of a scrutineering decision in FSAE??? I think you're way over-estimating the meaning of the competition.
We are one of the most succesful teams in the world during the last years and now try to find some information about our team at the uni's website. Most people don't even know our team exists...

Trevor

03-06-2012, 04:25 PM

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-xpdy8TSwbXE/T1apdAVuQkI/AAAAAAAAA0Q/G8BOnaSdnjg/s912/UTA08.jpg

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-7btGxROAIeo/T1apd_qo-zI/AAAAAAAAA0s/ISRZPlrDkAY/s720/maryland09.jpg

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-ZO-_FGYmKMQ/T1apeRBaEmI/AAAAAAAAA00/Bzm90QrpjNY/s400/SDMT.jpg

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Udsa7S8zs1I/T1apfHc126I/AAAAAAAAA1A/d8OaXsWeQLI/s400/UTA07.jpg

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-_LSpCEe3B2Y/T1aqVjORikI/AAAAAAAAA1w/VTQDdypVNu8/s576/MST11.jpg

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-NxKQJaWqALo/T1aqV6B9cEI/AAAAAAAAA1s/u16lWddKk4Q/s720/SDSMT.JPG

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-5PP5heeF8rs/T1aqVgOdxZI/AAAAAAAAA1o/UkQjygc-_PI/s720/Maryland.jpg

Pete Marsh

03-06-2012, 05:04 PM

Fantomas - <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> do you have an example of a Formula style car with wheel pods? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/F592RoadAmerica2009SCCANationalRunoffs.jpg/220px-F592RoadAmerica2009SCCANationalRunoffs.jpg

http://www.deepthrottle.com/Photo/runoffs05/run05_f5_novak.jpg

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa151/indyrand/cropduster.jpg

http://indycar.cdn.racersites.com/prod/photos/340708/FULL.jpg

http://images.gizmag.com/hero/indycar-deltawing-rocket-race-car.jpg

03-06-2012, 05:21 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fantomas:
... I only trust pictures.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Fantomas,

You are an idiot. You don't even understand "perspective".

Have you ever wondered why all the pygmies, midgets, and dwarfs always stand in the background of pictures, while the really big people are always up close??? http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
~~~~~o0o~~~~~

Bemo,

I agree that FSAE is currently far too small for lawyers to show any interest. However, I don't think that that is a good enough reason to allow discriminatory behaviour from the officials. For example, if bullying occurs in the playground of a really small school, then is it acceptable?

For an example of lawyers getting involved, google the (edit: on-and-off) banning of 800m track athlete Caster Semenya because she(???) err..., has testicles! (Ok, perhaps not as "big" an issue as wheel-pods, and apologies to Kevin for going further off-topic. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)
~~~~~o0o~~~~~

Pat and Tobias,

You are both FSAE officials, and you have both supported Fantomas's line of reasoning. So I respectfully ask:

1. Is it possible for a scrutineer, or any official, to read the students' minds, and thus determine their "intent"?

(I note that in legal circles any arguments about "intent" are known as nothing more than the bluff and blustering of boneheaded buffoons!)

2. Do you believe that it is fair to make "post hoc" rulings?

That is, should the referee be allowed to move the goalposts after the ball has been kicked?

3. Do you agree with Rule A1.1.1, namely that FSAE is about the students' "freedom to express their creativity and imaginations"? (See Pete's post above.)

If so, then why do you think the "creative and imaginative" UWA car was discriminated against, while the same-old-same-old big rear-winged cars were given the nod of approval?

I think these issues are of great importance to FSAE.

I would really like to hear a thoughtful reply.

Z

Michael Royce

03-06-2012, 08:39 PM

Sorry, I have held my tongue on this for too long!

Pete, you ought to know better, you have been doing Formula for that many years. What UWA tried to do has been asked about many times over the past few years, and the answer has ALWAYS been the same "NO!". If you are pushing in a grey area, yes, you need to ask the Rules Committee. They WILL keep it in confidence if they say "yes". Posting photos of cars from other series or classes does not effect the outcome. You know the Rule, and you know the intent of the Rule, too. Maybe you don't like it, but the Rules Committee has a responsibility to apply all rules consistently to all teams. And teams that try to bend them and get an unfair advantage will get pulled back.

As far as bringing in your lawyer. Forget it. Read Rules A.3.3, A.3.4, and C.2.5.1. When you as a team register for a competition and you personally register as a team member, you agree to abide by the Rules. Just because you don't like them or an interpretation, will not get you anywhere in a court of law, even here in the USA.

In response to Pete's comment about being allowed "to express their creativity...". There are rules and limits in Formula, just as there are in all things. Formula has the most open rule book of any motor sport competition. But there are limits, and you, as students must keep within those limits.

Someone in this thread talked about intimidating the scrutineer - no way. The Chief Scrutineers at many or most of the events and many of their assistants have worked "pro" races where peoples' living is actually on the line. A significant number have worked as Series Chief Scrutineer for professional race series. Scrutineers do not intimidate easily. In fact, one of the things mentioned at our SCCA Driver's Schools is that at a race meeting, there are 3 people (or groups of people) that you do not want to P.O.. The first is the Registrar, because he, or she, can so easily loose that envelope that you need when you register, and that can make you late for tech, etc., and put you behind for the whole weekend. The second group are the Stewards. The Chief Steward or Clerk of the Course, it depends in which country you are, because he, or she, has the power of God over you when you are on the track, and can get you black flagged at any time. The other Stewards as they are the ones sitting as a court if the Chief Steward decides you have done something wrong! The third person or group is the Chief Scrutineer and his/her team. The reason being here that getting him, or them, upset, can cause you to be in scrutineering for a long, long, time, and you really want that tech sticker don't you. I can tell you that arguing with a Chief Scrutineer will only make him or her more determined. Don't try it! You will loose, guaranteed.

03-06-2012, 09:24 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Michael Royce:
You know the Rule... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Michael,

Nobody knows "The Rule"! Its number has been asked for many times, yet nobody can give it. If you know its number, then please give it. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

The only reason given thus far for banning UWA is that it "doesn't look like other open-wheel formula style cars".

So why do you say that "Posting photos of cars from other series or classes does not effect the outcome."???

I think the problem lies here:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">... there are 3 people (or groups of people) that you do not want to P.O.
... because he, or she, has the power of God over you .... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It seems that FSAE is now an event where petty minded officials can enjoy themselves by pretending they are God....
Geez! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Michael, I ask you the same question I asked Pat and Tobias.

Do you really believe FSAE is still, first and foremost, about encouraging "creativity and imagination" in the students?

Or is it now for the benefit of officials that suffer from a lack of self-esteem, and would like the occasional ego boost?

(Please note that FSAE has nowhere near "the most open rule book of any motor sport competition". If so, then where did all those pics of wheel-podded formula style cars come from?)

Z

NickFavazzo

03-06-2012, 09:41 PM

I would just like to remind everyone that UWAM took the verdict on the chin and ran as required we have not thrown a hissy fit, we want and are expecting a rule clarification on this, tell us where the viewpoint is, make it clear, if we want to push boundaries we will, however everyone's job will be easier if the rules clearly stated these boundaries.

We sought a rule clarification and what we received back told us some wings are/were not legal either...

Photos have been posted showing other cars that do not meet the rules or the clarifications.

Other photos are showing open wheel cars for comparison on the "open wheel ruling".

Our car should not have passed initial scrute only then to be told it is not compliant during cost event.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
In response to Pete's comment about being allowed "to express their creativity...". There are rules and limits in Formula, just as there are in all things. Formula has the most open rule book of any motor sport competition. But there are limits, and you, as students must keep within those limits. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Clearly define the limits, then ensure ALL teams comply, we don't intentionally break rules and will follow them. Just don't have different rules for different teams.

Fantomas

03-07-2012, 01:19 AM

Trevor,
all of the shown cars in your post are legal according to the clarification that Pat has mentioned.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Fantomas,

You are an idiot. You don't even understand "perspective". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Z,
have you ever wondered why you seem to be always surrounded by idiots? Think about it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"creative and imaginative" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
In which universe is copying and pasting a solution which has been seen for decades considered to be "creative and imaginative"?

No one responded yet, if there was a specific rules request or not, which is why I suppose that there was none.

I have nothing to add to Michael's post. He hits the bull's eye with it.

Fantomas

PatClarke

03-07-2012, 06:08 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Pat and Tobias,

You are both FSAE officials, and you have both supported Fantomas's line of reasoning. So I respectfully ask: </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Erik, Despite your 'respectful request', I am not going to debate with you on here what or what not FSAE is all about.

Erik, you are an intelligent man, but you have a fantastic knack of turning any discussion into a s*itfight. I suspect you take a vicarious delight in stirring. It doesn't become you, but keeping in mind what happened last time you were active on the forum, I guess I shouldn't be surprised!

You have a lot to offer, and remembering that, you were welcomed back here. However, you disappoint me. As I said last time 'Erik, you know better than that'.

My final word on the topic!

Pat.

PS, Pirate Pete, I am disappointed with you too!

Luniz

03-07-2012, 06:59 AM

Taken from Wikipedia:
Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies) is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis.

I think the probability has already reached some very critical figure here, so should we not start to behave ourselves like grown up engineers?

Concerning the Topic: I can not really understand the reason for the non-existance of a clarification on this matter. From my point of view, if teams would like to have a particular rule officially clarified, they should get it clarified. Just my 2ct...

Bemo

03-07-2012, 07:33 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Z:
Or is it now for the benefit of officials that suffer from a lack of self-esteem, and would like the occasional ego boost? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you aware that you are talking here about people who organize these events during their free time without getting paid for it?!

Last year I was a scrutineer at FS Austria. It was the first time for me being on "the other side" of the competition. Believe me, it is absolutely no ones wish to have teams not running. It is really tough to tell teams who often travelled a long distance to take part, that they aren't allowed to run.
Without these people there is no competition at all, so you wouldn't have anything to argue about left.
Have you ever helped organising an event? If not you should be careful what you are people blaming for...

rrobb

03-07-2012, 07:44 AM

In regards to using lawyers to settle FSAE disputes, I'd keep in mind that in the US the courts have often taken the position that sporting events should be regulated by the sanctioning bodies and competitors who wish to go to court are usualy seen as spoiled brats. Although we see competition as important training for learning to deal with real world engineering problems, society at large sees a slightly more inteligent version of the Fast and Furious.

Cory

Claude Rouelle

03-07-2012, 12:22 PM

Ladies, Gentlemen,

I rarely post opinion on this website (which I read and enjoy everyday) but statements such as "You are an idiot. You don't even understand perspective" makes me react: such comments are unnecessary judgmental and not respectful. Nobody wins with such words. This is not the World Criminal Court or United Nations Security Counsel here; we are here to learn, having fun and enjoy the international spirit of camaraderie that FSAE and FS is about. Everybody is entitled to his own emotion and opinion but there is no need to use unnecessary aggressive words to defend them. That is my perspective.

Claude

Marshall Grice

03-07-2012, 01:15 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fantomas:
Trevor,
all of the shown cars in your post are legal according to the clarification that Pat has mentioned.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5263/5555270084_33451c765f_b.jpg

Kevin Hayward

03-07-2012, 04:39 PM

Well said Claude!

Kev

Fantomas

03-08-2012, 12:34 AM

Marshall,
this seems to be the 2003 car of Cal Poly Pomona, right?
I would say that this car does not meet the requirements, but obviously was allowed to run.
Maybe Michael can shed some light on this.

Fantomas

Marshall Grice

03-08-2012, 10:17 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fantomas:
Marshall,
this seems to be the 2003 car of Cal Poly Pomona, right?
I would say that this car does not meet the requirements, but obviously was allowed to run.
Maybe Michael can shed some light on this.

Fantomas </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yep. Obviously previous tech slip-ups aren't justification for letting it continue, however I don't see anything in the rules that prevents UWA from running what they showed up with. The wheel is clearly visible from above, given any reference "plain". There is no explicit restriction on partial obstruction and no requirement for 100% viewable from above.

And if we're going to split hairs, is the view of the wheel from above obstructed at all or just the tire? (it's tough to tell in the pics i've seen)

Markus

03-08-2012, 10:22 PM

I haven't taken part in this discussion because of the nature of it but I would like to express my opinion about wheel pods in this case and overall.

I myself don't see a point why "ridiculous aero" (wheelpods) should be forbidden when another type of "ridiculous aero" (huge wings) is allowed. Wheelpods have their own tradeoffs and it should be upto the team if they want to run those or not. Of course the actual covering of the wheels should be forbidden as we are racing open-wheeled cars.

I think one of the most exciting aspects of this competition is the variety of choices and compromises you have to make, and the diversity of the cars.

And when even "the best of the competitions" isn't up for keeping a strict line about the rules why any other competition should? I'm referring to the "slight" interference between GFR and track surface in FSG 2011. I think it was absolutely the right call to let them run but it did take a lot of credibility from the organizers, after all those driver meetings stressing out how absolutely completely forbidden it is to touch the track surface with anything else than the tires.

Let's keep the competition open guys (and girls), right?

Fantomas

03-09-2012, 03:12 AM

Markus,
I just had a look at the video recording of the FSG2011 endurance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFZyzhPkqyw

But I did not see, where they were touching the ground. Can you tell me a minute and second?

I was also live there and cannot remember that they were scratching the ground in Endurance.

Fantomas

STRETCH

03-09-2012, 05:30 AM

Fantomas,
That's hardly a suitable video as the cars are rarely audible, but if you were anywhere near the track like I was, you could hear the GFR car scraping the ground everywhere. They should have indeed been made to lift their car IMO, given that other aero teams were duly respecting this rule.

Wouldn't have stopped them kicking everyone's ass though, they deserved to win!

Fantomas

03-09-2012, 06:10 AM

Lee,
I was more or less deaf from all the single cylinder cars, so I probably would not have heard it anyway. But it is a good point. If the organizers tell you at every driver briefing that you will be banned for scraping the ground than they should act accordingly.

Fantomas

froggo

03-09-2012, 08:43 AM

While we are talking about clarifications: I think there should be one on the jacking bars of cars with extended undertrays such as GFR or UWA.
My iterpretation of the rules is: nothing but aero devices and parts of the exhaust system may be behind the rear wheels. So what about the jacking points?
Teams like Monash went without a mid diffusor, I'm sure because of this rule. Why did the scrutineers let those cars through tech?

Lorenzo Pessa

03-09-2012, 09:48 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by froggo:
While we are talking about clarifications: I think there should be one on the jacking bars of cars with extended undertrays such as GFR or UWA.
My iterpretation of the rules is: nothing but aero devices and parts of the exhaust system may be behind the rear wheels. So what about the jacking points?
Teams like Monash went without a mid diffusor, I'm sure because of this rule. Why did the scrutineers let those cars through tech? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A new member! Welcome!!!
That's so unusual to read a first post like this one.

I had a quick check on rulebook.
I think you refer to the mighty "Figure 13".
Figure 13 is used for fuel system (B9.5.1) and air intake system (B8.4.1)

Talking about rules, can you be more precise, please?

03-10-2012, 02:53 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PatClarke:
... keeping in mind what happened last time you were active on the forum ... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Pat,

Yes, back in 2005 I got so bored with the endless oppression of "Creativity and Imagination" on this forum that I gave it away. Some of the negativity towards C&I was from the more dim-witted students, "Oh, it's toooo hard to think for yourself...". But most was from the officials and wannabe officials.

For as long as I can remember Pat, you have been telling the students that they should build a boring, conventional car, totally devoid of C&I. Not because it is simpler or easier to build, or faster (because it is not), but because it does not require a shred of C&I. You have continually discouraged the students from following FSAE Rule 1.1, the very SPIRIT of the event. Instead you have encouraged them to build the unnecessarily complicated and slow PAT car. That is, you have told the students that they will somehow become better engineers if all they do is "Polish A Turd"! But I guess that is your opinion, which you are entitled to.

However, the recent threat to ban UWA by the Australian officials (you?), just because they showed some "Creativity and Imagination", was plain WRONG. Your refusal to further explain that episode (eg. just where is the mysterious "plane of view"?) won't make the issue go away. Admitting that it was wrong would help.
~~~~~o0o~~~~~

Bemo,

I am sure that many of the voluntary officials have the right intentions. However, Michael Royce spending two-thirds of his post threatening the students with the officials' "power of God" to give them hell, suggests that some officials have the wrong attitude.

It is worth noting that FSAE is the one of the very few times that many of the students will have the chance to do some interesting engineering. They spend four+ years with their noses in the books (or in front of flickering CAD screens), and then likely the rest of their working lives doing even more boring stuff.

So please (all officials), don't go spoiling the students one opportunity for enjoyable engineering just because of some narrow-minded, petty interpretation of an opaquely clarified Rule ...... that isn't there.

(BTW, I have done lots of this voluntary work, but in different sporting arenas (eg. footy, etc.). It is very often the same, one dim-witted official who wants to spoil all the kids' fun. The bigger the event, the worse it gets...)
~~~~~o0o~~~~~

Students,

All successful societies start off with lots of "Creativity and Imagination". They also all eventually die out, very often from the petty power struggles of middle level officials who strangle each other with ever lengthening red tape. Read the history books.

When FSAE started the founders put "Creativity and Imagination" front and centre, as Rule 1.1. I guess they did this because they thought it would help develop better young engineers, and in the long run a better society.

Ten years ago Rule 1.2 asked the students to build a high performance, but low cost, easy to maintain, and reliable, prototype racecar for the amateur autocross market. That is, the students were challenged to solve a real world problem. This second most important rule is already gone, and the brief is now to build a car that only has to be "sufficiently durable" to complete one FSAE competition. Real world engineering is no longer relevant.

How long before the "Creativity and Imagination" Rule A1.1.1 is also deleted? It is already subordinated to a sub-clause of Rule A1.1. And so far no official wants to talk about it, let alone support it.

How long before "We all have to move forward...", and the car becomes a "single spec PAT" car? Don't think it won't happen. Look at F1, Indycar, Nascar, etc., etc.... Note that FSAE hybrid rules are already "single spec" in the sense that only electric energy storage is allowed, and not flywheel storage, or pneumatic, or anything C&I....

If any of you students like the idea of using your "creativity and imagination", then you have to make your opinions heard. This Forum is a good place to start. If you remain silent, the witless drones will surely take over. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Z

bob.paasch

03-10-2012, 11:14 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by STRETCH:
Fantomas,
That's hardly a suitable video as the cars are rarely audible, but if you were anywhere near the track like I was, you could hear the GFR car scraping the ground everywhere. They should have indeed been made to lift their car IMO, given that other aero teams were duly respecting this rule.

Wouldn't have stopped them kicking everyone's ass though, they deserved to win! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

After no issues at California, Silverstone and Spelberg, we did have problems with touching the track at Hockenheim, although "everywhere" is a bit of an exaggeration. Our main problem was our front wing on the big bump midway through the course. After the autocross we raised the car ~15mm (about as high as we could get) and trimmed the bottom edge of the front wing sideplates nearly flush with the airfoil, but we still touched the track during endurance.

As for respecting the rule, none of the other aero teams at FSG-11 ran wings. Based on inspection, we didn't have much problem with our undertray touching, just a few small scrapes on the kevlar. Our front wing at FSG-12 should have a lot more clearance.

Anyway, word of warning for Monash, I think your FSAE-A-11 front wing will hit hard at Hockenheim unless you do some redesign. The bump in the middle of the Hockenheim track is big enough that most the fast cars get airborne.

Raydar

03-12-2012, 01:37 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Marshall Grice:
And if we're going to split hairs, is the view of the wheel from above obstructed at all or just the tire? (it's tough to tell in the pics i've seen) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

whaddyarecon?
http://motorsport.mech.uwa.edu.au/fileadmin/user_upload/IMG_3882se.jpg

Gruntguru

03-12-2012, 09:05 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fantomas:
Trevor,
all of the shown cars in your post are legal according to the clarification that Pat has mentioned. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Look closer. Every one of them has aero (mostly endplates) obscuring part of the wheel in plan view AND closer than 250mm to the tyre.

Moke

03-13-2012, 02:02 AM

I just read this and I'm pretty appalled at how ridiculous this has gotten. You have students talking of lawyers and officials of prejudicing teams. How this has degraded into personal "you're a idiot", "no you're an idiot" is beyond me.

Something I have come to realize is that no matter how much FSAE matters to you now it is just playing race cars. When you finally finish up uni (4-5years of your life) and get out in the work force (40+ years of your life), there will many times that you will get screwed and there is not a damn thing you can do about it.

You will have the best most awesome design and your boss or client will say "no, we've changed our mind we don't like it" and you will have to like their decision. You can bitch and moan and say "but the brief said" and all you'll get back is "so what, we have the money". I know this happens as it's happened to me twice this year and I've done it to a contractor last week. Creativity and innovation is encouraged in the real world but then there are constraints that you must work within and these constraints will change and then change back.

Ask the rule committee what you want then deal with the reply. That's life.

brettd

03-13-2012, 04:04 AM

While I doubt Z's going to win any awards for diplomacy anytime soon, I do like his idea of creativity and innovation.

Personally, it is much more fun, rewarding and educational to try and win the event with a bunch of 80-90% developed ideas compared to a 98% optimised but rehashed car. When you're going to the nth degree of rehashing/optimising old concepts, it becomes a resources/project management competition.

A new idea or design develops and tests the fundamentals of a students understanding. If a student doesn't have a good enough understanding, the design will not work quite as intended (or at all). This fact forces the students to have confidence and trust in their own understanding of fundamentals.

This confidence and fundamental understanding is something which is severely lacking in most engineering graduates today.

Dunk Mckay

03-13-2012, 01:58 PM

I like your idea, brettd, of fresh concepts every year, although from my experience this can prove to be a high risk endeavor, especially if your team doesn't get much support or advice from experienced staff at your university. Having said that, not all the fun of FSAE/FS comes from winning or doing well, participation alone is extremely rewarding in my book.

I agree that it's good for a student to be confident in his or her work, on the other hand if someone gets overconfident, even cocky, then things are bound to go wrong and the rest of the team will pay the price as well. If there's one thing I can't stand it's somebody presenting their work on the day of a design deadline with a smile on their face, and being able to tell with a simple look at the CAD model that it won't work.
----------------------------------------o----------------------------------------

Getting back on topic now, I would also really like to see some clarification of this whole open wheel, plan view, rule confusion. My initial interpretation of this is that taking the horizontal rectangular cross-section of the wheel-tire assembly, passing through the central axis of the wheel, and extruding upwards to infinity giving a column within which no bodywork, aerodynamic element or anything else for that matter should be placed. I am confident that no official would dispute this interpretation.

What worries me is that another team might take a more relaxed view of the rule and still be allowed to compete. Now I am not saying that said team would be in the wrong, they had a different view and the officials did not disagree with them at that event, and I would congratulate them on their success. And secretly hope that at the next event the official sees things a little bit more my way. And that's the problem, it's all down to the officials interpretation, which can vary. It's very easy to be sure you don;t infringe on the rules, but somebody who takes that risk could end up with a very unfair advantage.

As a team weighing up whether or not to commit time, money and resources towards developing an aerodynamics package, it is hard to simply just look at it as an engineering problem when regulatory politics and disputes are making the whole thing very fuzzy.

And when you get fed up of worrying about whether or not your designs are going to be treated fairly, you give up, decide that it's just not worth the effort and you throw the idea of running any significant aero out the window.

For students looking to start careers in the motorsport engineering industry, as many that participate in these competitions are, this is a tragedy. Not only do they not get to express their skills and creativity as an engineer in what could be the most versatile aspect of the vehicle design, but they also miss out on valuable experience working with aerodynamics principles and techniques before heading off into an industry which, for the most part, holds expertise in this area higher than any other.

So without wanting to sound like a broken record, I ask again, please somebody clarify the rules about aerodynamic packaging! When you do I can assure you that you will see more innovation and creativity, more enthusiasm from participants, and more interesting car designs than ever before.

Scott Wordley

03-14-2012, 12:19 AM

I'm disappointed that no one here has been able to make any logical sense of this issue. Its quite simple, please let me clarify it (as I see it, and possibly as the Aus rules committee sees it(a guess)):

The commonly accepted view is that an OPEN-WHEELED CAR is one where no part of the the BODYWORK covers the wheels in plan view. It would help if this was formally clarified in our rules.

The rules relating to AERODYNAMIC DEVICES (including wings, undertrays and splitters) specify their allowable package space (30 inches forward of front wheels, 12 inches rearward off rear wheels, no wider than widest outside of tires at hub height). There is no specification stating that these devices are not allowed above the wheels. Practically every FSAE team to ever run a rear wing has had it over the rear wheels. I see no reason why this should suddenly be considered illegal (as I will explain below), or anyone should be getting stroppy about it.

WINGS are considered AERODYNAMIC DEVICES... BUT NOT BODYWORK. Hence they are allowed above the wheels. The rule regarding their allowable width basically suggest this, considering we were not formerly allowed to have a wing behind the rear wheels. I consider the old Cal Poly car pictured above completely legal under our existing 2012 rule set. Its a WING, NOT BODYWORK.

WHEEL PODS (such as those presented by UWA) are considered AERODYNAMIC DEVICES AND BODYWORK. Hence they should satisfy BOTH rule sets.

What is the difference between bodywork and a wing you ask? That is obviously open to slight interpretation but I would say a wing is designed to maintain attached flow on all surfaces of the profile (bar the rear of the gurney flap which is a commonly used wing design feature) . They have a trailing edge where top and bottom surface flows rejoin each other. BODYWORK on the other hand is generally bluff at one end. An "infront of wheel" pod is bluff at the rear, near the tire and no attempt is made to reunite the top and bottom surface flows in a manner that maintains attached flow (ie trailing edge). The "behind wheel" pod is bluff at the front and there is no suggestion of a leading edge.

Wing endplates should be considered part of the wing. Gurneys are a commonly used design feature on endplates as well so should be allowed, whilst streamlining of the endplate combined with a "bluff" rearface would land you back in the land of BODYWORK, regardless of the fact that it is mounted to the outer end of a wing.

Before anyone asks, I would also classify undertrays and splitters as BOTH AERODYNAMIC DEVICES AND BODYWORK. Hence not allowed over the wheels in plan view.

To complete the Venn diagram, I would also postulate that a NOSE CONE must be considered BODYWORK but not an AERODYNAMIC DEVICE, based on the fact that no team's nose cone has EVER been forced to comply with the aerodynamic device package space. I would guess that the vast majority of teams have nose cones more than 30 inches ahead of the front tyres.

I can understand people confusion, due to the fact that in many other racing series no distinction is made between wings and bodywork (or fairings). FSAE is different in this respect.

My interpretation is consistent with the cars allowed by scrutineers to run at F-SAE. Please correct me if there was a car there that did have bodywork over the tires that was allowed to run, but I didnt see any (RMIT C were very close at the rear). Whether the scruitineer took a similar view to my own I do not know. A simple clarification either at the event or during the course of this thread would have helped enormously, diffused the entire issue and clarified future expectations.

I am sure it is on their list of things to do. Hopefully somewhere below the correction to the competition results. Has it been 4 months already?

Scott

03-14-2012, 03:47 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Scott Wordley:
... no one here has been able to make any logical sense of this issue...

The commonly accepted view is... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Scott,

Ah... "common sense", the least common of all the senses! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif If common sense really was common to all of us, then we wouldn't need any rules. But it aint, so we do.

The main problem here is that many parts of the FSAE Rules are an abomination (mostly the newer additions). Three typical examples are capitalised in your post, namely "OPEN-WHEELED CAR", "BODYWORK", and "AERODYNAMIC DEVICES". Not one of these important phrases has even had an ATTEMPT at a DEFINITION!!! (No doubt due to a lack of Euclid... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif)

As an example of the consequences of this sloppiness, earlier Froggo questioned whether the jacking bar was legal behind the rear wheels, a place where only "aero devices" are legal. "No problem!" say the team. They just have to claim that their jacking bar is an "aero vortex generator", and thus an "aero device", and thus legal.

If that sound a little lame, and lacking in common sense, then consider this. As I have mentioned before, Max Mosely and the FIA banned Renault's inertial dampers (a simple spring-mass system completely SEALED inside a box!) because they were "movable aerodynamic devices"! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif And that was in F1.

When it comes to officials interpreting rules, common sense is tossed straight out the window. If it isn't clearly defined, then anything goes.

The rules need a thorough rewrite, preferably by someone who understands the value of clear and concise definitions. So if something unusual comes along (ie. something creative and imaginative), and there is nothing against it in the rules, then it is allowed to run.

To repeat the really crazy part about all this, the UWA wheel-pods were an attempt to improve fuel efficiency. Nevertheless, the officials banned them! Now where is the common sense in that?????

Z

Jakob

03-14-2012, 04:21 AM

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

As an example of the consequences of this sloppiness, earlier Froggo questioned whether the jacking bar was legal behind the rear wheels, a place where only "aero devices" are legal. "No problem!" say the team. They just have to claim that their jacking bar is an "aero vortex generator", and thus an "aero device", and thus legal.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But then you still have no jacking bar ( you have an "aero vortex generator"). But the rules say, you need one. So it isn't a solution, is it?

Scott Wordley

03-14-2012, 05:00 AM

Forgot to mention:

Bob: thanks for the heads up. We are working on it now and will make sure we have additional clearance for Europe.

Froggo: I see no rule relating to any limitation on the rearward location of any part of the car other than aero devices, the exhaust and the intake (due to roll envelope). The jacking bar must be at the rear of the CAR. There is no formal specification to limit this rear location. The only practical limit imposed is based on the effective operation of the jacking bar, which is a function of the lifting height of the quick jack (specified in the rules or addendum), the location of the bar (height and rearward position) and the droop travel of your suspension. If you have zero droop it can be as far back as you want, theoretically. If you have some amount of droop, at some distance back away from the car the lifting the jacking bar by the height provided by the quick jack will fail to get the rear wheels off the ground... Hence failure of the jacking bar functionality. Front wings can also complicate matters if they are very low.

We borrowed the bar used by the local organizers and built an exact replica of it just to check this stuff ahead of time.

An interesting potential scenario we noted was the ability of a car to pass the jacking bar functional requirement (lifting rear wheels off the ground) , while the car is either partially or fully suspended on the front wing at the other end!

Makes it a little hard to move anywhere!

Has anyone ever seen a scruitineer actually use a jacking bar in anger? (ie on track?)
I certainly haven't.
Most comps seem to keep only one on hand for the purposes of scruitineering only.
It's to tempting to move most broken cars off course by pushing on the wings, or by lifting them by the wishbones(if you are TUG). I don't mean to poke fun at the officials (I would do the same), Im just pointing out the fact that the jacking bar rule offers no real value to our comp, but it's been there for 20 years and probably will still be there 20 years from now. I'll probably still be complaining about it.

Another one to add to your rewrite list Z...

How about this:
For every new rule we add to FSAE let's take one away.

luxsosis

03-14-2012, 05:12 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">My interpretation is consistent with the cars allowed by scrutineers to run at F-SAE.
Scott </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The wheel pods were approved by the scrutineers and the car passed scrutineering with them on. It was later we were told we had to effectively cut them in half to remove the part covering the tyre, or remove them.

03-14-2012, 05:12 AM

Jakob,

I smell a "Catch 22"...

Froggo's interpretation is "nothing but aero and exhaust behind the rear wheels". I had a quick look but couldn't find this in the rules (too many pages!). But let's assume that it is in there.

Next, we have:
"B6.6.1 A jacking point, ... must be provided at the very rear of the car."

Ah, "rules" ... don't you love them! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
~~~o0o~~~

Edit: Oops! Scott explained above in his post (prev. page) while I was writing this.

Scott, IMO good engineering is to add one new well designed part, so that you can delete TWO (or more!) of the old poorly designed parts. Same with rules. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

(BTW, Isaac Newton, regarding rules, "... more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.")

Z

Lorenzo Pessa

03-14-2012, 06:02 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Z:
I had a quick look but couldn't find this in the rules (too many pages!).
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can't find that because there is nothing like Froggo's interpretation.
Froggo (let's use this probably fake-name) needs to read rules again.

About the jacking point: don't forget that it is very useful (and safe) to lift rear wheels when starting the engine to warming it up or testing.

Pete Marsh

03-14-2012, 05:54 PM

Now THAT'S a clarification! Thanks Scott.

If the official clarification looked like that would this thread contain insults and threats? Or would it instead be about the pros and cons of huge wings vs streamliner and floor?

However, I do see some prejudices from the status quo in there. Specific exceptions that allow the current norm are just milder versions of the current clarifications "view point" solution to allow wings to cover the wheels.

This is my main issue, the rule should allow competing concepts the SAME opportunities to achieve their goals, be it huge wing area or low drag streamlined flow. The use of incumbent terminology, eg "gurney" or "wing" includes a prejudice to the current norm. Can you draft a rule that does not rely on, or assume, a particular concept solution?

Pete

Kevin Hayward

03-14-2012, 06:56 PM

Scott is on the right track.

I was worried at Australia when the rules committee were looking at the winged cars to ensure none of the front wing overhung the front wheel. This goes against a precedence of legal cars with wings overhanging front wheels (including CAl Poly). Obviously this was ignoring the rear wing.

It is clear that the definitions in the rules need to be updated regarding this issue. The rules committee are usually very efficient at this so I would expect the nest rule set will cover it. However in the case of difficult interpretations there is a clear pathway for clarification. SAE quite readily respond to these queries, and do not share the information with other teams.

Pete, did UWA pass this design by SAE? If so was it just for a worded clarification or did you provide adequate drawings for them to make a reasoned reply? If you did were you initially allowed to run the pods or not?

Pete it is not the premise of the rules to allow equal competition between different concepts. Rather it is setting a framework around which students are encouraged to find the best solution. I see no reason for this to change.

Kev

Crispy

03-14-2012, 09:21 PM

Did anyone else chuckle when they read,
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Scott Wordley:
Its quite simple, please let me clarify it:
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
followed by a full page of text? http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I mean no disrespect. Just a friendly poke.

I agree that this situation is quite simple, but for a different reason. Different reasonable people can read the same rule and have very different reasonable interpretations. To me this implies that the rule has never been clear. The rule is simply inadequate and needs clarification. That clarification should take one sentence, possibly two. Just like the ground clearance clarification FSAE made last year.

One potential clarification that seems reasonable (not that my opinion really matters):
-With the steering pointed straight ahead, no part of the car may occupy the space that is directly above the top surface of a tire and below the highest point of that tire.

Again, not that my opinion matters. I think UWA should have been allowed to run the pods. Outside of safety judgments, when there is grey, I think the ruling has to go to the team.

Luniz

03-15-2012, 01:35 AM

Hi Chris,

this may be a practicable solution, although it would effectively rule out most rear wings as well as some floor panels. For the sake of further developing aero in fsae, I'd rather go for:

"With the steering pointed straight ahead, no part of the car may occupy the space that is directly above the top surface of a tire and less than XX (300 for example) mm above that tire and below the highest point of that tire"

This would form a box-like volume around a tire in which no aero can be installed unless it is higher than 300mm above the tire top surface... So you guys could still run a humongously huge rear wing ;-)

StevenWebb

03-15-2012, 02:30 AM

I'd be a bit opposed to a packaging box thats too big, it would give a minimum wing height, getting rid of one of the engineering decisions we have to make. I also think regulating aero vs bodywork would be difficult and lead to a lot of shitfights, our rear wing is only a few degrees AOA away from being a bluff body at the rear, and whose to say UWA didnt want airflow to be attached underneath their pods but were just really bad at designing wings?

Hows this for a rule, Lets make scruitineering fun! the scruitineer can write a number with chalk/a sticker on the tire, then rotate the tire so the number is anywhere on the top half of the tire the scruitineer wants (in UWAs case it would be near the front). and then team members have 5 seconds to say the number!

I dont mean to start another argument, but would anyone actually be opposed to getting rid of the whole "open wheeler" thing altogether? I think it'd be great to see if teams try to fill the gap between winged cars and non winged cars.

also, mini can-am cars = awesome

Kevin Hayward

03-15-2012, 04:35 AM

Steven,

I think it would be great to get rid of the open wheel rule altogether. It makes for a great design compromise. Full bodywork would weigh more, take more time, but may offer performance advantages. At the same time there is already a decent push to minimise plan area, which would be the effective limit to performance, as it is already with undertrays. It would be a great decision making.

Of course I am pretty biased as I am much more a fan of sportscar racing than open wheel vehicles.

Kev

DougMilliken

03-15-2012, 07:02 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hows this for a rule, Lets make scruitineering fun! the scruitineer can write a number with chalk/a sticker on the tire, then rotate the tire so the number is anywhere on the top half of the tire the scruitineer wants </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lots of rule possibilities here. How about one that should be easy for scrutineers, "With the driver (or equal ballast) in the car and steering pointed straight ahead, no bodywork or aero devices within 6" / 150mm of the tire, measured in any direction."

Crispy

03-15-2012, 08:20 AM

Blast! Apparently even I failed at simplicity!

Lunits, I intended my clarification to be even less restricting than yours, only restricting the space "below the HIGHEST point of that tire". So take your solution and make X=zero and we are saying the same thing. It also would leave most undertrays untouched as it only restricts the space "directly above the top surface of a tire ". I think your solution is reasonable but I would prefer an even less restricting rule.

I also think removing the open wheel requirement altogether would be reasonable (and awesome, for the same reasons mentioned by Kevin).

Doug, I thought about a clarification with similar wording, but went away from it because I feel it would require definitions of bodywork and aero devices (easier to ban everything), and it would effect the space inboard of the tire. I could imagine people (me) making suspension links with intended aero effects.

Dunk Mckay

03-15-2012, 08:40 AM

Much as I like the idea of seeing some LMP looing FS cars, I think abandoning the open wheel race car rule would provide a massive advantage to teams with lots of resources. They could design and manufacture intricate carbon fibre bodywork designs and test them in a full scale wind tunnel.

Meanwhile the poorer teams are either struggling to get enough carbon fibre to make even the simplest of lightweight bodywork, while others are piling on 50kg of fibreglass that looks good in CAD but does very little for the car aerodynamically.

A bit of an exageration perhaps, but still an issue. And yes, I realise that there are already aspects of the competition that tend to favor the "wealthier" teams, but that cost reporting and other elements of the events tend to compensate for this, for the most part. But why add to it? Any team with limited resources will feel outdone when they turn up and see cars with amazing carbon bodywork, custom made carbon wheels, LRP'd titanium uprights, oh and custom designed engines.

Markus

03-15-2012, 01:15 PM

Cost report won't do a dang to compensate wealthier teams to poorer teams.

How many of the teams running DAS had "forgotten" to list it in their Cost Report last year and got away with that? For example Uni Stuttgart had the cheapest car in Italy according to Cost Report. And Superfast Matt states in the book that Cost Reports is worth the cheating (that was by the old rules but still that seems to be the trend).

Every year we try to make the most complete and accurate Cost Report that's ever possible - and take a hit in points because of that.

sbrenaman

03-15-2012, 02:43 PM

Reminds me of those micro machine cars...
http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/7871/formulasaelmp.jpg

Dunk Mckay

03-16-2012, 02:36 AM

They could split it into to different classes, open and closed wheel. But having just merged C and E classes into one I can't see that happeneing, even if they did consider the idea.

So long as F1 remains the dominent motorsport in the eyes of the world and it remains open wheeled, I highly doubt we'll see any move towards closed wheel racers in FSAE.

Kevin Hayward

03-16-2012, 05:07 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dunk Mckay:
Much as I like the idea of seeing some LMP looing FS cars, I think abandoning the open wheel race car rule would provide a massive advantage to teams with lots of resources. They could design and manufacture intricate carbon fibre bodywork designs and test them in a full scale wind tunnel.

Meanwhile the poorer teams are either struggling to get enough carbon fibre to make even the simplest of lightweight bodywork, while others are piling on 50kg of fibreglass that looks good in CAD but does very little for the car aerodynamically. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I could not disagree more.

The enemy of the poorer teams are rules where there is only one valid concept. Where there are many approaches to the one problem there is always the opportunity for less resourced teams to out fox the more resourced ones. Large well resourced teams love closed rule sets. It ensures that the money and time they have is not wasted on the wrong concept. We have seen this played out a number of times in professional motorsport with so-called "cost cutting measures". When there is an obvious optimum the rich teams dominate. When the rules are more open the smaller teams are comparatively more successful, but the rich ones complain endlessly about the cost of competing.

Allowing full bodywork offers some advantages, but not much more than is already available, given that the only part of full bodywork you currently can not have is the area above the wheels. However there is the known increase in weight and design/manufacturing time. If the cars had an easily met minimum weight it would be a simpler decision.

The materials cost is quite low for this sort of work given it can be fibreglass as easily as carbon, it is the labour cost that is high. While there can be a decent argument for not encouraging teams to have large monetary budgets the opposite is true for the size of teams. Every effort should be made to encourage FSAE teams to be as big as possible while maintaining improved learning outcomes for our future engineers. As a student you may see teams such as Monash (Australian example) as having an unfair advantage because of a very large team. Instead see it as 60 odd people getting an improved education.

Also, the general public sees FSAE cars as jumped up go karts rather than mini-F1 cars. I can also think of no reason to encourage an F1 connection for FSAE. I would rather we had a better connection to something like LMP racing where there is true innovation and focus on embracing technology that can be applied back to road cars. One of the many reasons we have seen the manufacturers abandon F1 and turn to sportscars.

Kev

Dunk Mckay

03-16-2012, 06:28 AM

I like your argument Kev (sorry, that sounded corny, I really do appreciate the feedback tho). I can see how more restrictive rules can favour the wealthier teams. Although I would question whether or not allowing full bodywork over the 'almost full bodywork' we have now, might in fact reduce the potential number of valid concepts rather than widen it, even without a minimum wieght limit, especially with more and more wieght being put on fuel consumption.

Also it remains that the poorer teams still have to have that stroke of genius, that good idea, to be able to perform the outfoxing. As well as the resources to implement it; a great idea is no use if you can't afford to make it happen, advantage richer teams.

I haven't gone round counting, but from what I've seen the teams with greater numbers are often (not always) the more resourced teams (bigger Universities often means bigger budgets and better facilities). More heads working on a problem could give rise to more clever ideas. On the other hand "too many cooks...", so I'm undecided on that one. My team last year can't have been too far short of 45-50 members, but not much more than half of them showed all that much enthusiasm other than to complete their own projects which form part of their degree (a good and bad thing). So we ended up with things done well bolted onto things done poorly, or sometimes realising quite late on that things hadn't been done porperly at all. Althoguh i think I'm straying from the issue, venting steam perhaps.

I'm interested what you (all) think, especially as to the potential consequences of full bodywork allowance.

03-16-2012, 07:42 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kevin Hayward:
The enemy of the poorer teams are rules where there is only one valid concept.
...
Large well resourced teams love closed rule sets.
...
We have seen this played out a number of times in professional motorsport with so-called "cost cutting measures".
...
When the rules are more open the smaller teams are comparatively more successful, but the rich ones complain endlessly about the cost of competing.

...

Also, the general public sees FSAE cars as jumped up go karts rather than mini-F1 cars.
...
I would rather we had a better connection to something like LMP racing where there is true innovation and focus on embracing technology that can be applied back to road cars. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Kevin,

I agree wholeheartedly!

And with the rest of your post. Just thought I'd re-stress some of the key points. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Z

Rex Chan

03-19-2012, 08:38 AM

Greetings all!

The INfamous UWAM 2011 wheel pod/fairings were tested in the Monash Wind Tunnel today. I'll let the UWA guys let you know how much drag it reduces. I took video of the flow vis/smoke: Monash Wind Tunnel Party: UWA2011 *WITH* wheel fairings/undertray (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10150633067288036)

Photos from the day are here: Monash Wind Tunnel Party: ECU and UWA (http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150633064273036.395605.559588035&type=3)

FYI: the fairings DO NOT stick out past the tyres: UWAM2011 Wheel pod (top view, close) (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150633076898036&set=a.10150633064273036.395605.559588035&type=3)

Lorenzo Pessa

03-19-2012, 09:31 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DougMilliken:
Lots of rule possibilities here. How about one that should be easy for scrutineers, "With the driver (or equal ballast) in the car and steering pointed straight ahead, no bodywork or aero devices within 6" / 150mm of the tire, measured in any direction." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In a way like this brake cooling ducts will be banned.

Bemo

03-20-2012, 03:36 AM

I cannot believe this discussion has once more turned into a rich vs. poor teams thing.

Someone already mentioned the impression that larger teams usually have larger budgets. I'm pretty sure that's true - because they have more manpower to search sponsors. Here in Germany teams usually don't get a lot of funding from their schools and from what I've seen so far American unis have far better facilities than German unis.
Our team got an own lathe last year. Before we just didn't have one! (to give just one example).

It's always nice to have more money and recources than others, no matter what the rules are like...

Back to the wheel covering thing. Personally I don't have any preferences whether covered wheels should be allowed or not, but I really hope the rule will be clarified in the future.

I already worked as a scrutineer and it makes life easier if rules are as clear as possible so there is just no discussion about how to interpret something.

Bemo

03-20-2012, 03:55 AM

Regarding the wind tunnel tests: In the pictures it looks like you're testing with stillstanding wheels. Is that true? I guess that rolling wheels have quite an impact on results for drag and downforce.

TMichaels

03-20-2012, 04:04 AM

I have raised attention in the FSAE Rules committee to discuss this issue.

Regarding the budget discussion, I can only agree to Bemo's statement: Being well funded is a team achievement. No company gives away money for free.

Rex Chan

03-20-2012, 04:42 AM

Bemo: yes, the wheels are non-rotating. I don't think the Monash Wind Tunnel has facilities to turn the wheels (although there is a rolling road dyno further back).

Kevin Hayward

03-20-2012, 04:59 AM

Bemo,

I'm not sure the discussion had completely descended to the old rich vs poor arguments. The results of the cost report are always a sore point amongst teams. Once you have been around a bit longer in this comp you start to realise that competing well in the cost event is more about in depth knowledge of the event and reporting requirements than it is about whether your car is actually cheaper in real life. Conceptually the Stuttgart car is no more complex than most cars and I see no reason why it couldn't do well in cost.

To my mind it is one of the most broken parts of the competition. Like fuel use vs. fuel efficiency it should be based on cost effectiveness rather than lowest cost. A $10,000 Hyundai is a good deal, a $20,000 Ferrari is an amazing deal.

...

As for the wind tunnel the lack of a rolling road does take away from the accuracy of the results. However the tests are still very useful. I know the ECU guys are using the wind tunnel test results to provide validation with CFD models. The CFD model can be matched to the Wind Tunnel setup. If you see good correlation then it is a reasonable indication that the CFD is working fairly well. You can then explore areas in CFD that you wont test in the wind tunnel with more confidence. The ECU team designed its wings using only CFD (as many teams do with tunnels). The models used were very simple using a low level CFD package for rough approximations. The idea they had was to make decisions based on track testing. The initial correlations to CFD have been closer than expected. This will allow the team to put a bit more trust into the CFD models and try and get more performance out of the wings.

Hopefully Scott or one of the team might grant us an effectiveness of wind tunnels post.

...

Finally on that point I have nothing but respect for the Monash team. Over the years they have been very generous with their time and resources. They have released some very valuable information as SAE papers, and are always willing to share the wisdom they have gained through their aerodynamic testing. They display the true spirit of FSAE.

You don't have to do a lot of searching to find how little of the research conducted in professional motorsport ever leaves the team. This is an incredible waste of the resources poured into the sport. Hopefully one of the effects of encouraging aerodynamic development in FSAE is that more fundamental information is released. While papers written by teams are very often flawed there are still gems to be found.

Kev

Bemo

03-20-2012, 08:04 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kevin Hayward:
Once you have been around a bit longer in this comp you start to realise that competing well in the cost event is more about in depth knowledge of the event and reporting requirements than it is about whether your car is actually cheaper in real life. Conceptually the Stuttgart car is no more complex than most cars and I see no reason why it couldn't do well in cost. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I was a team member at 10 events in total, a visitor at 3 events and an official in 1 event http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As for the wind tunnel test. I see what you did there and expect it to be absolutely legit. I was just curios. At our uni there is a full scale wind tunnel with the possibility of rotating the wheels. But so far the only thing we were allowed to do in there were some team photos...

Rex Chan

03-20-2012, 09:28 AM

KevinH: I am in the process of getting my wind tunnel data (2011 Melbourne car, with 07/08 MOnash wings) off the Monash Wind Tunnel PCs.

When I get the data, I will post up as much data as can be conveyed across images. I'll see if I can put the raw files somewhere public too, if people are interested in our results.

Based on your post, I hope this means ECU will do the same. I've also scanned the (Monash) wing profiles I used to assemble our wing, and the layout/positioning of the elements that ScottW liked the best. This means anyone could CFD our final wings, based on a pretty accurate models, and compare with Wind Tunnel data.

I also plan to get the 2011 Melbounre car on track in the coming weeks (i.e. actually get on to making/mounting them properly). I am very keen to see what difference in G's, slalom times, and laptimes. These will be posted too.

One question for the ECU guys: ScottW asked why the rear wing is so heavily cambered (doesn't use up all the lengthwise real estate; a lot more camber than Monash 2011), and I am interested too?

Kevin Hayward

03-20-2012, 10:12 AM

Bemo,

I'm pretty sure the guys at Stuttgart know the ins and outs of the cost event. The comment was aimed towards those that incorrectly assume that the higher quality cars will end up more expensive in the cost event.

I know in my first couple of events (back when the cost report was almost complete fabrication) we used to get annoyed that all these fancy cars were much cheaper than ours. As we learnt more our cars became simultaneously more impressive and cheaper.

Do the cost report long enough and you become the person you hate http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Or hate the person you have become?

Or personify the hate of the cost event?

I'm not entirely sure anymore.

Kev

Kevin Hayward

03-20-2012, 10:36 AM

Rex,

How much the guys share is not my decision, but I would imagine they will update the other post regarding the wind tunnel with at least a rough idea of the numbers we expected and what we saw.

The answer to your question about the rear wing camber is pretty simple. We made a mistake.

The wings that ran at comp were our first trial attempt and never were meant to run in 2011. We pushed to get something running, and really only started the aero package design in the middle of the year (led by a first year). The guys spent a bit more time on the front wing, which was harder to get to work and we scaled the rear wing to match the front downforce.

This ends up with similar downforce values than what we would have achieved, but has an increase in drag. Incidentally because the rear wing is quite high in drag it applies quite a moment to the car, which effectively nullifies some of the good the front wing was doing. There are lot of changes planned for 2012, the guys have been pretty busy.

At the end of the day getting the aero package working for ECU in 2011 was less about the downforce and drag numbers, and much more about sorting out manufacturing methods and initial on car testing. We did however make our own dodgy free air wind tunnel, with workshop fans and a Jaycar smoke machine. The visualisation was interesting and we learnt a heck of a lot in one day of mucking around. One of the things Monash hadn't warned us about is how much fun playing around with wings actually is.

By the way if you are wondering why the guys were covering up the wings at comp, it wasn't because they were trying to hide anything. We were getting bubbles in the paint as the wings heated up, and the guys were trying to keep the direct sun off them.

Kev

Big Bird

04-06-2012, 09:39 PM

Sorry Kev, I never got around to a serious response to this very thought-provoking thread. There is a lot to read here, I don't want to reignite any fires, nor go over arguments that have been done to death here. So some quick points.

1. Thank you Claude. I couldn't agree more. The opportunity to learn, and to network with peers from around the globe should far outweigh any particular emotional response we may have to a car part - or the rules that may allow or disallow such part.

2. These forums are about a discussion of ideas, not a contest of egos. When the former, we all learn - when the latter, we all suffer. If anger is driving you to respond, or the need to win an argument - take time out.

3. To those of you whose primary purpose in frequenting these forums is to point out all that is wrong in the FSAE world - do us all a favor and volunteer. Show us how hard you want to work to make FSAE a better event. Bring your opinions to the table where you may present them face to face to those hard-working volunteers who seem to have got it all so wrong.

4. Pete and the UWA crew seem to be the most rational contributors in this whole discussion. They gracefully accepted the ruling at the comp, (and since), took it on the chin and then went out and blew the doors off nearly every other team at comp. There is a lesson there somewhere...

5. To me, the most significant point that comes out of all the UWA wheel fairing issue is that contentious rules interpretations need to be sorted out with the officials BEFORE THE EVENT. There is all manner of rational and irrational debate in this thread about subtle interpretations of existing rules, and how future rules should be written. No doubt some of you spent many hours researching the topic, finding photos of racing cars from FSAE and other categories, carefully re-reading rules, carefully choosing your words to suit your arguments, and coming to some final (usually disparaging) opinion on the organizers final decision. I can assure you that the officials had nowhere near the amount of time or spare brain space to ponder the issue when it was presented to them unannounced at the event. You might expect them to know that the Cal Poly Pomona car of 199* had the front part of its wheel obscured, or that an openwheeler class somewhere back before Smokey Yunick's day allowed full wheel covers. But I can guarantee that the officials at the event are already going to have their brains pretty full with flag marshals and cones and scrutineering queues and templates and tents and overflowing toilets and cars running around at speed and spectator safety....
If you want favorable interpretation of your contentious design, you don't want officials first laying eyes on it at the event...

Cheers,

Bemo

04-07-2012, 02:46 AM

+1 on Geoff's post.

Since I'm volunteering for FS Austria, I got a different point on a couple of things...

TMichaels

04-07-2012, 02:53 AM

It really changes your viewpoint to be on the other side of the fence, doesn't it?

04-08-2012, 03:59 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Big Bird:
I don't want to reignite any fires... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Geoff,

Well, there is still a lot of unburnt fuel here... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

You say, "... the officials had nowhere near the amount of time ... to ponder the [UWA wheelpods] issue...".

That's not the way I understand it. From previous posts it seems that UWA got through scrutineering with no problems, and were in the middle of the Cost event when one/some of the officials FOUND THE TIME to interupt them, and threaten them with expulsion if they didn't take a hacksaw to their wheelpods.

The key point here is that UWA were threatened with expulsion simply because they were DIFFERENT. That is, they were showing "creativity and imagination", while the conventional "P.A.T." cars, some with fuel guzzling air-brakes covering their wheels, were given the nod of approval. IMO that really was a disgrace.

I have been "on the other side of the fence" many times (in other sports), and I know for sure that officials do not have a "God"-like infallibility (as suggested by Michael Royce). They are human, and they make mistakes. When officials do make their inevitable stuff-ups the right thing to do is to acknowledge the mistake, apologise, and try to take measures to lessen the chances of it happening again (see below).

Passing the buck to the competitors by expecting them to sort out "contentious" issues before the event will NOT work (for obvious reasons). If a team arrives at competion with a "contentious" (your word), or a "creative and imaginative" (my words), design that in no way contravenes any of the written rules, then that team should be applauded by the officials. They should NOT be threatened with expulsion.
~~~o0o~~~

The only reason I am on this forum is that I want my children to inherit a society that still allows "creativity and imagination". Or better yet, actually fosters it in its engineers. It is an indisputable fact that there are very strong influences in homo sapien societies to stamp-out innovative thinking, and to enforce a conformity amongst all members. Read the history books, or just look at modern spec-racing.

FSAE has gone from having "creativity and imagination" as its most important Rule 1.1, to "C&I" now being demoted to a sub-clause. The newly written hybrid rules are already "electric only" single-spec. Despite my requests, no official has yet publicly supported "C&I" on this thread.

You have asked for suggestions on how FSAE might be improved. If you agree that "creativity and imagination" really is a good thing, and you want to keep it in FSAE, then how about this suggestion:

Ask the students to "judge the judges"!

That is, at the conclusion of each competition the students submit forms expressing their opinions of individual scrutineers and other official's performances, the Design judges (ie. how much design feedback they gave, etc.), and the overall running of the event. Officials who rank poorly are not invited back. Officials scoring high marks are given greater say in how future events are run, what any future rule changes might be, and so on.

This process is loosely related to "democracy", a concept that has proved beneficial to societies in the past.
~~~o0o~~~

Students,

If any of you believe that "creativity and imagination" is a good thing that should be encouraged, then perhaps you could conduct an unofficial version of the above "assessment of officials" yourselves. Rank the officials, post the results on this forum, and hopefully move FSAE in a direction that produces better engineers.

Z

Big Bird

04-08-2012, 04:51 AM

Aah Z, I can always rely on you for a provocative response. And it is welcomed.

I'm afraid I'm completely lacking in creativity and imagination after far too many Easter eggs this weekend. I really should take some time to ponder the contentious interpretation you have presented, lest a rushed response be somehow ambiguous, leaving my viewpoint prone to further dissection and criticism. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Cheers mate, I'll get back to this.

ecstatic

04-08-2012, 06:36 AM

I think Kev's hit the nail on the head with open rules allowing less well funded teams to compete closer to well funded teams.

This whole thing reminds me of the parallels we've seen in F1 over the last few years.

Remember towards the end of 2008 when it was just Ferrari and Mclaren endlessly pumping out iterations of little winglets and turning vanes until the cars looked like some kind of aborted cold war prototype plane?

Then the FIA shook up the rules and we had Red Bull and Brawn step in with a whole heap of creative and innovative solutions that brought them to the front. While Ferrari and Mclaren produced utter dogs of cars because they immediately started to optimize winglets rather than doing a clean sheet design.

The rule controversy reminds me of the FIA's constant interruption of Red Bull for the last two years as well. They kept producing cars that would pass the FIA wing deflection test but could be seen visible deforming on track. When pulled up on it Red Bull would more or less state that if you want to ban it, put it down on paper or we'll keep building them this way.

So there you go even though everyone says F1 is nothing like FSAE, judging by this thread the politics are pretty damn close.

Michael Royce

04-09-2012, 02:29 PM

OK everybody, get ready for a broad-side from someone who had the responsibility of overseeing those Rules for 9 years and has worked a few events over the years!!

"Open Rules"?? FSAE already has the most open set of rules of ANY motor sport related (and FSAE is NOT racing, at least in SAE's and IMechE's eyes, it is an educational competition) event/series.

If you look at the car construction rules, and those are the ones you are complaining about, 90-95%, maybe even 99% of them are safety related, designed so you young people can go back home to mum and dad in one piece, and so that you don't hurt any of the volunteers out there as you are having fun. Ask Ross Brawn or Pat Symmonds, Formula Students ambassadors. They will agree with me.

So what rules would you make "more open"?? Aero? This just allows teams who can devote resources to aero to go even faster!! 2 strokes? Why? What additional educational experience would be gained?

As far as getting rulings from the Rules Committee goes, in any endeavour there are rules otherwise there is chaos. Someone has to administer these rules. For FSAE/FS this is the Rules Committee. Yes, it IS the team's responsibility to seek out clarification if they are unsure OR they are pushing the bounds of accepted practice, i.e. being "innovative", BEFORE the event. Then there is no "fuss" at the competition. The Rules Committee do not pass on teams' secrets, although if the answer is a "No", in the past we have often posted the "No" as an FAQ. By all accounts, UWA have been very good about what happened last December at Werribee. But Pete, you should have known that the leash is only so long!

For those who complain about the officials and volunteer, try it on the other side at least once. For those of you Down Under, Geoff has already issued an invitation. For those of you in the USA, volunteer at Michigan or Lincoln. In Europe, there are several events. By the way, if you volunteer as a scrutineer (tech inspector) do not expect to win a popularity contest. It is not fun to have to tell a team that their car, on which they have spent hundred if not thousands of hours, does not meet a rule, and has to be changed. It is not fun to tell a team that their car has to be pulled off the Endurance track because it is leaking oil or for some other reason. But it has to be done.

There are already ways for teams and individual students to input their ideas. Keep doing it by writing to the organizers. Some competitons already have a survey form for teams to fill in. But stop short of criticizing and naming individuals. That is the surest way to loose volunteers. And then no events.

04-13-2012, 06:21 AM

Michael,

1. You say, "FSAE already has the most open set of rules of ANY motor sport related ... event/series." (my emphasis).

Nonsense! I can only wonder if your motives are the same as the politician who shouts "taxes have to come down!", ... just before he raises them.

All motorsport begins with a few young men having a motorised pissing contest. NO RULES. Just seeing who can outdo the other. Recent examples are drifting and rock-crawling, which both started with young guys passing time. Then, as more people join in, someone makes up some "rules" just so they can decide who wins. Then, when the competition gets even bigger, the "officials" join in...

Anyway, there are countless amateur motorsport events/series that have much slimmer rulebooks than FSAE. In fact, a new entrant with a thoroughly non-compliant car is often allowed to compete "just to see how they go". Amateur = for the love of it. I realise that winning FSAE is too important these days to allow anyone to compete, but then again, it is intended primarily to be educational.

So, regarding rules and education, you say;
"Aero? This just allows teams who can devote resources to aero to go even faster!!"

As Kevin rightly pointed out earlier, more liberal rules are an advantage to the LESS resourced teams. And as many great auto engineers from ages ago (Ledwinka, Lefebvre, etc., ...) have proved, aero is about efficiency. Namely reducing fuel consumption, or getting more from less. (But I guess if you work in a country whose government reckons "you only build pickup trucks", that might not matter).

"2 strokes? Why? What additional educational experience would be gained?"

Well ... currently 2-stroke diesels are the biggest, most powerful, most FUEL EFFICIENT engines on the planet! Pop the bonnet on countless ships.

(BTW, I have in mind a small, simple, lightweight, powerful, and very fuel efficient, turbo-supercharged 2-stroke diesel, suitable for FSAE. But ... ohh..., wait..., neither 2-S, nor diesel are allowed... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif )

And then there is the single-spec hybrid class, which is "electric only". What is the justification for only allowing the least efficient, and most poisonous (!!!) means of temporary energy storage (really only there to capture braking energy, and dead-weight at all other times)??? Oh yes, the marketing dimwits reckon that "electric is the future". Groaaan... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
~~~o0o~~~

2. "But stop short of criticizing and naming individuals. That is the surest way to loose volunteers. And then no events."

Nope, not at all. The events will continue, and they will be better run.

The less capable officials will either "try harder", or go back to spectating. New and better volunteers will quickly fill the void.

This is a concept related to democracy (it rarely appears under other systems). It is called "meritocracy". http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Z

PS. "But Pete, you should have known that the leash is only so long!" !!!!! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
C'mon Pete, that's a gooood booooy. Time for walkies!

Markus

04-14-2012, 04:09 AM

I agree with Z, and I think the rules should only go as far as keeping the competition safe. Current rules are too restrictive on some parts, espicially on the engine choice.

Volunteers should be there to make sure everything is to order and goes smoothly. The last thing FSAE needs is volunteers that are there to feel the power they're given over the competitors.

mdavis

04-14-2012, 03:11 PM

Markus,

How can you say the rules are too restrictive with respect to engine choice? You can run anything you want, provided it's 4 stroke, spark fired, and under 610cc's. I don't know of any other series (save A-Modified SCCA autocross) that's less restrictive than that.

Bemo

04-15-2012, 10:44 AM

No offence Z, but you're on quite the wrong track. Have you ever been an official at an event? I can really say it changes your point of view on a lot of things.
Your assumption about finding "new and better" volunteers couldn't be any wronger. I'm in the organising team of FS Austria. You can't believe how hard it is to find enough people willing to spend their free time after they left their team. If the few people who are organising the events turn their back in it - well, than it is just over, believe it or not.

As for the rules you miss some parts. The reason to only allow pure electric drive as alternative powertrain is in fact safety related. You need scrutineers who are familiar with the technology used by the teams. How should they judge wether a car is safe or not? Giving the teams a rough direction to go makes it a lot easier to make efficient safety regulations. Sometimes restricting design choices is a safety related rule.
And last but not least. You REALLY want to design a 2-stroke diesel engine for FSAE. Just think about why it is only used in huge ships. Maybe you will see your mistake here.

I really have to say you should think about your attidute towards officials. You are complaining about a lot of things in these forums. Moaning around is easy. If you think it is THAT simple to improve FSAE come to the other side of it. But I must warn you - a lot of things look different from there.

Luniz

04-15-2012, 12:32 PM

Bemo, you're not completely right about the huge ships bit...

This is a carburetted 3.5ccm, putting out 2.48hp @ 33.000rpm, used in RC model cars
http://www.redrc.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/ospromodvzb.jpg

Moke

04-15-2012, 02:45 PM

Geoff, I would expect that you will be receiving a call from Z offering to be a "new and better volunteer" for this years comp. After all if the current batch aren't cutting it in his eyes you will need replacements and he is the perfect guy to start you off. Or will he just keep tell you what you need to do and never bother to help.

Sometimes rules and regulations force greater creativity and innovation. Think of some of the F1 creative 'work arounds', wings that meet a template when static but change shape at speed, driver aids buried deep in code. Having restrictions on what can be done is a reflection of the real world, which we must all work in one day. Having 100% freedom will not make you a better engineer, it will make you (what I call) a pretty picture designer. You will make pretty CAD/coloured pencil drawings of stuff that can or will never be made due to real world restrictions.

04-15-2012, 08:51 PM

"No offence Z..."

Bemo,

I wouldn't last long here doing what I am doing if I took offence that easily. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

As I mentioned before, I have done lots of voluntary "official" work, but in other sports. That is where I formed my opinions.

If you are worried about a lack of volunteers making FS Austria "over, believe it or not", then perhaps you could try this. Send an email to all entered teams saying;
"Not enough officials!
For FS Austria to proceed we need each team to nominate N members who will perform "official duties" during the event.
First names received will get the good jobs.
Last names will be on latrine duty." http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

The above approach works well in park football when not enough "official" referees or linesmen turn up. A quick chat between team captains and problem solved.

(And BTW, I am probably spending too much time here doing unpaid voluntary work trying to help the students with some of the more basic aspects of mechanics and engineering. Things that their professional professors should be teaching. But I am selfish. I am hoping that one day one of the students will design a car that I find "interesting". Hmmm, now I still want a "skycar", but even something earthbound might do...http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)
~~~

"As for the rules you miss some parts. The reason ... is in fact safety related."

Ohh, and don't forget cost. Yep, the two favourites for banning anything creative or imaginative, "safety and cost". http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
~~~

"You REALLY want to design a 2-stroke diesel engine for FSAE. Just think about why it is only used in huge ships. Maybe you will see your mistake here."

Hmmm, thinking..... is it because of "more from less"?

But, more thinking..... so, why is that a "mistake"??? http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
~~~~~o0o~~~~~

Brent,

"... due to real world restrictions."

Sadly, it seems that it has only taken you a few years in the "real world" to have given up on engineering (n. derived from "ingenuity"), and instead to have adopted the business viewpoint of "any old rubbish, just as long as it makes a profit"? Or do I misunderstand???

I agree that the "real world" is going that way. I just don't accept that it has to do so.

Z

Menisk

04-15-2012, 10:06 PM

Z, I can see why you would ban diesels for safety reasons. Common rail injection system can run pressures up around 20,000PSI. That's plenty dangerous, at these pressures the injectors can perforate skin and inject the diesel straight into you and do some serious damage. Whether or not this is part of the reason we're not allowed to use them, I'm not sure.

As for two-strokes, look back at Moke's comment about real world application. There's no way in hell you'd put a two-stroke in a production car. Saab did it once, you had to go down hills with the throttle open and brakes on to make sure that you were still oiling the engine, not to mention that you'd have to think about either premixing fuel or topping up your two-stroke oil if you had it setup to mix itself.

There's also a massive focus on efficiency both in the real world and in our comp. Two-strokes and wankel's aren't known for being light on fuel. Ultimately this whole endeavour is setup to try and give us the best possible start in real world automotive applications and if we build 2 stroke diesels that are only good for short races we miss learning about the types of engines that are actually applicable to real world cars.

Moke

04-16-2012, 12:30 AM

Z,

What I mean is if you get a job in F1 you have rules, you can't run a diesel as the rules say you can't. If you work in WRC you need to make a 1.6L turbo and 34mm restrictor make as much power as you can, you can't run a 5L diesel as the rule say you can't. You have rules and restrictions that you must work within and yes making a profit is part of the job.

You could make the best most engineered carbon fibre and titanium CNC'ed widget which costs $1000's for a product that must be sold of $500. There still needs to be a lot of engineering to make the same part within budget eg: maybe fibreglass with cast steel and then make thousands of them.

I started work at a company that was just me and the owner, we were making highly technical one off composite parts and the company was going tits up. We got a contract to make mining equipment and we had to design the parts in order to mass produce them and make some money off them. We now are a much larger company of 30 people and one of, if not, the biggest user of carbon fibre in New Zealand. And we are still designing technical new products that are changing coal mining and making us money. I have just learnt that you need to pay the bills so you can do cool work. The mining products have paid for a new autoclave, cnc router, 30 people having a job, a much bigger factory nearer my house, oh and my house.

I'm still doing engineering and I just have a budget, mining FRAS standards, staff levels and time restrictions I must work within.

Bemo

04-16-2012, 01:27 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Z:
we need each team to nominate N members who will perform "official duties" during the event.
First names received will get the good jobs.
Last names will be on latrine duty." http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And you think you will get "better" volunteers that way? I don't think so...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Z:
Ohh, and don't forget cost. Yep, the two favourites for banning anything creative or imaginative, "safety and cost".
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What are you complaining about? Welcome to the real world. You can't just unregulate everything and hope for the best. You need to make sure, that the event is safe. Therefor a couple of restrictions are needed. End of story.

The current rules set with the 4-stroke engines makes it quite easy for new teams to join FSAE as you can just run a bike engine. If you want to get into the top rankings you need to get a deep understanding of how the engines work and what's happening while running them. That's would FSAE is supposed to be. I don't see anything wrong here.

Fantomas

04-16-2012, 01:58 AM

For Z:

><((((º>

Enjoy your meal!

04-16-2012, 03:56 AM

Menisk,

Common rail diesels are on sale to any and every member of the public, all of whom can do whatever they like inside the engine bay. Electric and hybrid cars have more than enough volts and amps to kill you stone dead. Conventional petrol engines can burn you to death, chop parts of your body off, etc., etc. It is in incredibly lame excuse to ban diesel on the grounds of safety.

In case you missed it last time, two-stroke diesels are the most FUEL EFFICIENT engines on the planet. For the job they do they have a low initial cost, and they last a long time. Do not think that lawnmowers are the only way to build two-strokes.

Please try to think these things through. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
~~~o0o~~~

Brent,

F1 and most other high profile motorsport series are soap operas with next to no "ingenuity" required. I have given many examples of good engineering solutions that were banned from F1 for the most inane reasons, usually starting with safety and cost.

On the other hand, mining is much more open to innovative thinking. They are happy to use anything that will get the cash out of the ground faster. Good luck with it. I doubt you would have got your house by selling CF products to the mainstream auto industry.
~~~o0o~~~

Bemo,

How good do your volunteers have to be for latrine duty?

I recall you complaining about "how hard it is...". http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

See above for comments regarding safety and cost, but perhaps you can explain why being electrocuted to death is better than, say, getting some diesel sprayed into your skin?
~~~o0o~~~

Z

Menisk

04-16-2012, 04:14 AM

Can we make a special class just for Z? I'm curious to see the contraption he turns up with.

Bemo

04-16-2012, 05:22 AM

Telling that common rail diesel systems run safely in modern passenger cars doesn't change anything. It's a difference between a mass produced passenger car which has been designed by an army of engineers and has been tested for several years before starting to sell it and a race car which was designed and built by a bunch of students within a couple of months.

Restricting design concepts allows you to make efficient safety rules (I know for you it is ridiculous to reduce design freedom for an "insane" reason like safety). Also scrutineering is much easier. If every team is running a different concept, it gets very hard, as you have to understand what they did there, before you can decide wether the car is safe or not.

And last but not least, how do you want to score fuel? It would be possible to have a factor for diesel vs. gas. But when running 2-stroke engines and teams mixing oil into the fuel I can't imagine of any practical way to have a good fuel formula which takes into account that the amount of oil propably isn't the same for all teams.

Every technology has its own risks. Running an electric car at 600V has other risks than running a common rail diesel system at 20,000 bar. And that is why you have to make restrictions. If you don't you can't know what teams will come up with and what kind of risks this will add. So you would need universal engineers who are experts in a neverending field of technologies to make a reasonable scrutineering.

JWard

04-16-2012, 07:21 AM

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

And last but not least, how do you want to score fuel? It would be possible to have a factor for diesel vs. gas. But when running 2-stroke engines and teams mixing oil into the fuel I can't imagine of any practical way to have a good fuel formula which takes into account that the amount of oil propably isn't the same for all teams.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I certainly agree it becomes difficult to level the playing field when teams are using different technologies, diesel vs gas vs electric. However, do 2T require oil to be mixed with fuel? I though that modern 2T (like the direct injection petrol one KTM have developed) have more modern oiling systems at the bottom end just the same as modern 4T engines?

AxelRipper

04-16-2012, 08:00 AM

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

And last but not least, how do you want to score fuel? It would be possible to have a factor for diesel vs. gas. But when running 2-stroke engines and teams mixing oil into the fuel I can't imagine of any practical way to have a good fuel formula which takes into account that the amount of oil propably isn't the same for all teams.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I certainly agree it becomes difficult to level the playing field when teams are using different technologies, diesel vs gas vs electric. However, do 2T require oil to be mixed with fuel? I though that modern 2T (like the direct injection petrol one KTM have developed) have more modern oiling systems at the bottom end just the same as modern 4T engines? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For the past 15+ years snowmobiles haven't required premix. They run a system that injects oil with the fuel at a set rate. With the new DI engines, they use very little oil, but they do still burn it. I'm not 100% sure how they route it, but it involves oiling the bottom end bearings and some of it getting into the top end somehow. Definitely less usage than a 40:1 premix, but still there (down to about 1000miles/gallon as opposed to between 250-500 miles/gallon)

Bemo

04-16-2012, 11:54 AM

The problem is that the 2-stroke issue would be just one thing. If you don't restrict engine concept at all, how do you want to know what teams might come up with? If suddenly every team is running some different type of fuel it gets just impossible to have a universal rules set which is working for all concepts.

AxelRipper

04-16-2012, 12:11 PM

Admittedly, LeMans is doing a decent job balancing Diesel and Gas (or getting closer to being balanced), but their teams have WAAAAY more money, time, and skill than any FSAE team (save for maybe a few).

Didn't FSUK allow diesels and 2 strokes in 1A last year? How many teams did that?

I've seen what would probably be the only non-custom diesel engine that would work in a FSAE car. It is a Kubota 3 cyl, fully mechanical. There are 2 teams running it in CSC right now. Its heavy, only partly reliable when you start messing with it, and not very powerful.

ed_pratt

04-16-2012, 01:33 PM

They allowed diesels but I'm not sure about 2-strokes.

Although, I believe the idea behind the diesels was to be used a small constant power source ie. a far more energy dense method of producing power for an electric car.

I've never come across one which could be used sensibly as a "normal" engine though.

Ed

Charles Kaneb

04-16-2012, 11:13 PM

I think we should allow two-strokes the year after a large OEM starts selling one in a passenger car.

My guess as to the main ideas behind the engine rules:

1) They require you to use something generally relevant to passenger cars - a fuel injected, four-stroke spark-ignition engine. If you learn what's required to develop a reliable, economical, easy-to-start, driveable 600/4 or 450 single that makes good power, then you'll be able to apply these principles just as easily to something like a 1.8 liter inline 4 in a passenger car.

2) They allow a broad variety of engines to be competitive, and force you to make decisions and compromises that influence the rest of the design of the car. A turbocharged, intercooled, 600cc inline four is legal. If you're good at component design and tuning, you will make more power than the team with a 450cc naturally aspirated single can. It will also weigh more and take up more space. Will you be faster with it?

3) They provide physical and practical limits to how much power you can make, which enhances safety and competition. The great turbo 600 teams have gotten to 90ish horsepower. A fairly ordinary effort on a 450 single will make half of that. Development of an extraordinarily powerful engine does not have to be the main focus of your project.

4) I'd like to see an interesting "off-the-shelf" option for teams with limited/nonexistent engine development resources or teams who want to take advantage of an engine with unusual properties.

This is the only place I'd see a two-stroke fitting in right now. Would anyone design an FSAE car around a dead-stock PRD Fireball? Including its pumper carburetor, ignition, radiator, starter, centrifugal clutch, and exhaust, it weighs 45 lbs. It makes 24 horsepower or so.

Bemo

04-16-2012, 11:20 PM

What they do at Le Mans is to build cars which are too different to be compared. Then they tune the rules until the cars are more or less equaly fast. You can't say who built the best car that way. It is ok there as events like Le Mans are for the show and have to be sold.

FSAE is not motorsport. It is about education. That is something often said, but almost never understood.

mech5496

04-17-2012, 01:14 AM

About diesels; they ARE allowed to FSUK, and in matter of fact, they are the only ICE allowed in FSAE series to run WITHOUT a restrictor; not quite sure about how the fuel consumption and efficiency scores are calculated, need to take a look at the rules again. Smart Diesel engine anyone? http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif (although that might be heavy....)If I'm not mistaken, BMW has tried something with diesel motorcycles some years ago, that might be a place to start.

EDIT: For those who might be interested, take a look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_motorcycle

Seems there IS a military spec, modified KL650 (not far from a typical FSAE-spec engine) converted to use diesel fuel. Link:
http://www.gizmag.com/go/4272/

More on diesel motorcycles:
http://www.dieselbike.net/mili...litaryprototypes.htm (http://www.dieselbike.net/militaryprototypes/militaryprototypes.htm)
http://www.dieselbike.net/mili...litaryproduction.htm (http://www.dieselbike.net/militaryproduction/militaryproduction.htm)
http://www.dieselbike.net/comm...rcialdevelopment.htm (http://www.dieselbike.net/commercialdevelopment/commercialdevelopment.htm)

Kevin Hayward

04-17-2012, 01:46 AM

Bemo,

I think Z and others understand that it is about education. The real problem comes when we disagree about what makes a better educational experience. Some prefer the competition to be about replicating restrictions in real world exercises and focusing on basic understanding which can be applied to other areas. This helps train engineers that can slot straight into a work environment.

Others prefer a compeition where there is almost limitless options to innovate so that students learn to look for outside solutions. This helps train students that will be future innovators.

Both of these approaches have merits. The real problem is that it is difficult to make any educational exercise all things to all people. It is also easy to fall into the trap of believing that education is always getting worse. I am not a believer that the quality of graduates has dropped. Our perception becomes incredibly skewed when we look at past vs. present. We tend to focus on the great engineers of the past, forgetting all of the really bad ones that went through, but we constantly meet the mediocre engineers of today. In some areas graduates are weaker, but only as a result of teaching different material.

Now that I have joined the dark side of education (a place I never thought I would end up) I find it incredibly hard to balance the learning outcomes of students. On one hand you want to prepare them for the workforce they are about to enter, and on the other you want to prepare them for the workforce they will one day lead. This is the same problem we have in defining a balance for FSAE. Overall I think the rules are a reasonable attempt, but the organisers should not be either surprised or upset when others have different views.

The future of the FSAE rules will be interesting. Now that it is a large competition with a lot of university resources behind it has grown beyond a small group of SAE members deciding on rules without significant international consultation (including from universities). I don't think any competitor wants a repeat of the Australian Rules debacle of 2011. However I don't think any of us want rules by committee where everyone has equal say and we end up with horribly compromised rules. Frankly I think these forums could be used a lot more effectively and transparently by the rule makers. Genuine discussion could be had by a truly devoted and wide reaching FSAE group.

Kev

Big Bird

04-17-2012, 08:48 AM

Nicely put Kev. The thing is, the world needs both work-ready engineering analysts, trained to do traditional development work, and creative engineering designers, who can look at a problem from a wide range of viewpoints. I think FSAE actually caters pretty well for both.

I'm actually going to agree with Z a little here though. Why should the rules prescribe solutions? (And for example, stating that engines must be 4 strokes is prescribing at least a class of solution to the problem of engine selection). Imagine if the "motive power" specifications were an air restrictor (to limit air flow and therefore instantaneous power), a fuel flow rate limit for same, and a points system that encouraged simultaneous high speed, low fuel use and low emissions. No capacity limits, no restrictions on configuration (i.e. two strokes or four strokes or rotaries...) and the teams had the opportunity to analyse the design problem from first principles. Yes, many would pick 4 strokes, and thus fulfil any auto industry demand for 4 stroke developers. But if perchance some team wanted to attempt to try something different, maybe some low emission two-stroke idea they might have - then as long as it met the fuel, air and emissions criteria, then why not?

Of course, my proposal above requires instantanous monitoring of emissions whilst racing to be fully implemented - and I have no idea how to do that!

rjwoods77

04-17-2012, 09:39 AM

The clean snowmobile challenge does static emissions testing and they are also rife with diesels for better emissions and fuel economy. If you wanted to make a trade off for engine freedom then parc ferme the ecu after emissions testing. Fair trade for what you get versus tinkering at comp.

TMichaels

04-17-2012, 10:03 AM

That would also mean that the teams need to have an emission analyzer at hand...which is not realistic and again would broaden the gap between (attention, I am not saying well funded) teams which have these resources in their university/country and teams which don't.

To parc-ferme the ecu is practically impossible and additionally it would be very easy to hide a switch somewhere or just use the wheel speed to switch maps.

Even if I personally would also like a more open rules set, we have to keep in mind the practice. Someone has to be able to check the cars for rules compliance and balancing the points also gets really hard, if this is intended.

As an official at FSG I learned to look at all these things from a very different viewpoint. You always have to consider the big picture. Currently most people in this thread just throw ideas without validation: "Let's allow diesels, they are so efficient", "Let's allow 2-strokes, they are best!" etc. Nobody analyzed what this would do to the competition or the balance between concepts as long as it seemed "creative" enough.

If the rules set would be that open, you will have approx. 2 teams per comp showing that they are able to think outside the box and the others will start to copy as soon as they find out that a concept works.
Let's face it: The number of really competent engineers is limited.
This is why big companies like car manufacturers break down their problems into absurdly small chunks, so that even a below-mediocre engineer is able to solve it without trouble.
There is just no way to teach or train "outside of the box thinking" in my opinion. You are able to or you are not.

And by the way: Very strict rules do enforce "outside of the box thinking" in my opinion: Double diffusor, F-Duct and double DRS have shown this.

ben

04-17-2012, 10:09 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Big Bird:
Nicely put Kev. The thing is, the world needs both work-ready engineering analysts, trained to do traditional development work, and creative engineering designers, who can look at a problem from a wide range of viewpoints. I think FSAE actually caters pretty well for both.

I'm actually going to agree with Z a little here though. Why should the rules prescribe solutions? (And for example, stating that engines must be 4 strokes is prescribing at least a class of solution to the problem of engine selection). Imagine if the "motive power" specifications were an air restrictor (to limit air flow and therefore instantaneous power), a fuel flow rate limit for same, and a points system that encouraged simultaneous high speed, low fuel use and low emissions. No capacity limits, no restrictions on configuration (i.e. two strokes or four strokes or rotaries...) and the teams had the opportunity to analyse the design problem from first principles. Yes, many would pick 4 strokes, and thus fulfil any auto industry demand for 4 stroke developers. But if perchance some team wanted to attempt to try something different, maybe some low emission two-stroke idea they might have - then as long as it met the fuel, air and emissions criteria, then why not?

Of course, my proposal above requires instantanous monitoring of emissions whilst racing to be fully implemented - and I have no idea how to do that! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe you should ask Gill Sensors to sponsor 10 of these:

http://www.gillsensors.co.uk/c...uel-flow-sensor.html (http://www.gillsensors.co.uk/content/fuel-flow-sensor.html)

Then you can have an invitation class with an "energy" flow restriction and virtually no other regs and see what happens.

Ben

AxelRipper

04-17-2012, 10:40 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ben:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Big Bird:
Nicely put Kev. The thing is, the world needs both work-ready engineering analysts, trained to do traditional development work, and creative engineering designers, who can look at a problem from a wide range of viewpoints. I think FSAE actually caters pretty well for both.

I'm actually going to agree with Z a little here though. Why should the rules prescribe solutions? (And for example, stating that engines must be 4 strokes is prescribing at least a class of solution to the problem of engine selection). Imagine if the "motive power" specifications were an air restrictor (to limit air flow and therefore instantaneous power), a fuel flow rate limit for same, and a points system that encouraged simultaneous high speed, low fuel use and low emissions. No capacity limits, no restrictions on configuration (i.e. two strokes or four strokes or rotaries...) and the teams had the opportunity to analyse the design problem from first principles. Yes, many would pick 4 strokes, and thus fulfil any auto industry demand for 4 stroke developers. But if perchance some team wanted to attempt to try something different, maybe some low emission two-stroke idea they might have - then as long as it met the fuel, air and emissions criteria, then why not?

Of course, my proposal above requires instantanous monitoring of emissions whilst racing to be fully implemented - and I have no idea how to do that! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe you should ask Gill Sensors to sponsor 10 of these:

http://www.gillsensors.co.uk/c...uel-flow-sensor.html (http://www.gillsensors.co.uk/content/fuel-flow-sensor.html)

Then you can have an invitation class with an "energy" flow restriction and virtually no other regs and see what happens.

Ben </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well it sort of makes sense I have to say. Is there any other way to power limit the electric cars?

TMichaels

04-17-2012, 01:53 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Well it sort of makes sense I have to say. Is there any other way to power limit the electric cars? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We actually supervise the energy flow since 2010 with the energy meter:
http://www.formulastudent.de/u...ecification_v1.0.pdf (http://www.formulastudent.de/uploads/media/FSE2011_Energy_Meter_Specification_v1.0.pdf)

04-17-2012, 10:04 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Big Bird:
I'm actually going to agree with Z a little here ... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks Geoff, every little bit of support helps. Also to Harry for the diesel bike links (they'll be everywhere soon), and to Kevin for being sensible. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
~~~o0o~~~

I see this sort of debate (common also outside of FSAE) as falling into two camps.

1. Those, such as Bemo and Tobias, who have taken on the responsibility of organising a FAIR competition, and who QUITE RIGHTLY need a reasonably tight set of rules so they can decide who is the winner.

2. The nut bags (http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) who want to toss the rules, and instead have a peculiar sort of fun that involves doing stuff that has never been done before.
~~~o0o~~~

Now, as an example, just say we have some young men (and face it, nobody does this to meet girls) who have been daring each other to drive their 4WDs up some rocky slopes. It has got to the stage where big crowds have gathered to watch, so rules have been set out to help decide who is "The Winner".

Then a nut bag turns up with a contraption made out of bamboo, hemp-fibre, and horse-glue, that runs on vegetable scraps, and covers the course in record time by floating into the air and flying to the top.

So the big question: Who is the winner, and who are the losers???
~~~o0o~~~

Ok, clearly an unrealistic example (err... well...). But I would argue that in the above everyone wins, and there are no losers. The crowd loves it, the other entrants get their trophies, and maybe even society benefits.

Of course the car companies making the 4WDs will be annoyed for a while, and will moan about having to "re-tool... and start thinking again...". But, geez, it is a fully sustainable flying car! IMO, that has to be good! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
~~~o0o~~~

As Tobias said, there are very few FSAE teams that will try anything really new. And even fewer of those will be in any way successful.

But FSAE is supposed to be, foremost, an educational experience. So why stop that tiny fraction of the students from at least BEING ALLOWED to try something new?

In the long run, everyone might win.

Z

TMichaels

04-18-2012, 12:29 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">1. Those, such as Bemo and Tobias, who have taken on the responsibility of organising a FAIR competition, and who QUITE RIGHTLY need a reasonably tight set of rules so they can decide who is the winner. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't know where all your statements about officials come from. Maybe an official has really disappointed you in the past.
However, I do not care who or which concept wins a competition. I am only interested in having a set of rules, which guarantees a safe and fair event, which can be organized with a reasonable amount of time and resources.

And as some of you always pretend that the rules set is limited, because "someone" (conspiracy theories anyone?) does not want the rules set to be open or wants to control who wins:
Do you know what a nightmare a competition with a very open rules set is with respect to safety (including liability, especially when non-professionals are involved)?
I bet you don't. I can honestly say that every official that has some responsibility for the safety of an FS event always is in jail with at least one foot. Especially in countries where you can be sued for serving hot coffee without a warning printed on the cup...

Z,
I still wonder why you do not take the chance to volunteer and make a difference at an event, if you really think that everything can be improved so easy. I personally judge people by what they do and not what they say. It is just too easy to bash people in a forum for what they do, instead of showing up at an event and taking over responsibility.

04-18-2012, 04:05 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TMichaels:
I don't know where all your statements about officials come from... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Tobias,

http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif I was complimenting you for having "taken on the responsibility of organising...", and I said you "QUITE RIGHTLY need a reasonably tight set of rules".

Z

TMichaels

04-18-2012, 04:17 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...so they can decide who is the winner. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I was referring to the quote above. This sounded like the officials have any interest in influencing who wins the competition. But I have never met someone with that attitude.

04-18-2012, 04:40 AM

Tobias,

That was not my intended meaning. I just meant that when boys are competing they want a clear decision of who is "The Winner". This is made easier with some "rules".

Anyway, I am not against ALL officials. Many are really good, although over the years I have also met some shockers!

Z

AxelRipper

04-18-2012, 04:53 AM

Z, you talk about coming out with an innovative concept that is so crazy that it works. Would you say that the Deltawing is a good example of this? I mean, it was made with complete disregard to any rules set, and had enough luck (read: money) to convince the ACO that it should be allowed at LeMans.

If you don't have rules on a class you do, eventually, find someone with enough "resources and skills" to find what works the best, then they dominate and keep getting faster until they start going too fast for the squishy bit behind the wheel. This is what happened to Can-am and Group B if I remember correctly. This is what would likely happen to every race series that is out there if they're allowed a truly "open" rule set.

AxelRipper

04-18-2012, 04:55 AM

And on that I also just reminded myself of probably the series with the most open rules set in the world.

http://www.24hoursoflemons.com/

kcapitano

04-18-2012, 05:45 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> If you don't have rules on a class you do, eventually, find someone with enough "resources and skills" to find what works the best, then they dominate and keep getting faster until they start going too fast for the squishy bit behind the wheel. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have to disagree slightly with your interpretation here. The way I see it performance and safety go hand in hand. If you start building cars that are going too fast for the "squishy part behind the wheel" then you have two options:
1) reduce performance to "safe" levels
or
2) increase safety to meet performance gains

But let's look at the specs:

1985 Audi Sport Quattro S1
540 bhp
435 ft lbs
1090 kg

Generic Modern Rally Car
300 bhp
440 lbft
1200 kg

So, were the groub B rally cars really too fast, or was it just that car and event safety hadn't caught up yet? The point I'm trying to make is that if you keep limiting rules in the name of safety then you are only going to slow down the progress of safety technology.

With all that said I do agree with TMicheals in that a more open rule set could make it harder to judge the safety of competitors, but that would depend on how the rules were written to what extent they were "open".

Edit: original specs for group B car were wrong

AxelRipper

04-18-2012, 07:13 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
So, were the groub B rally cars really too fast, or was it just that car and event safety hadn't caught up yet? The point I'm trying to make is that if you keep limiting rules in the name of safety then you are only going to slow down the progress of safety technology.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, this is true. However, it seems nearly every time that rules get more open, the cars quickly go to a point where they are faster than is safe.

I suppose it does probably wind up being a fight between the officials trying to keep things safe as people keep getting faster. I'm sure most racing series could be faster, but the technology to keep the drivers (and even spectators) safe just isn't there or economically feasible.

EDIT: Oh, and just stumbled across this coincidentally: http://www.caranddriver.com/fe...n-am-could-have-been (http://www.caranddriver.com/features/what-can-am-could-have-been)

rjwoods77

04-18-2012, 07:49 AM

kcapitano,

You are comparing a homologated street model of a group B Lancia to a modern rally car. The actual race cars were pushing around 600hp in the better equipped cars and if it continued into 1987 there were rumors that Audi was going to throw down the gauntlet with much higher power levels around the 800hp region.

Kevin Hayward

04-18-2012, 08:50 AM

I'm not sure I should have to point it out but we have one of the best methods for limiting performance already in the rules. All we need to do to counteract growing engine performance is shrink the restrictor. It has been done in FSAE before, and see no reason why it should not be considered. One of the great strengths in the FSAE rules is the restrictor, add to that a points advantage for using less fuel and we have a cap on the amount of air and the desired amount of fuel. This makes for a fantastic leveling of engine concepts. Add simple emissions testing to the mix and you end up with a great amount of varied engine development amongst the hundreds of univesities involved.

I'm not overly interested in getting to into the different engine debate, purely on the basis that is not a great area to spend large resources to improve performance of an FSAE vehicle. But given the fact that it has come up we can see one glaring inconsistency. We have rules that limit 2-strokes and diesels, but we allow E85. This is a definite US approach to the problem of fuel use, rather than a real world effort. I can see the basis for limiting fuel use for competition simplicity and even running, but doing so leads to a logical solution of one fuel for all. Yet we allow E85 as an alternative to promote development in a better fuel for the environment? If we are trying to go for better real world solutions why don't we allow diesel or direct injected 2-strokes.

There is also talk about not wanting to go down the road of equivalency to not favour different concepts, but we already play that game with 2 restrictor sizes. We must know that E85 and 98 Octane by the current rules are not equivalent, but there doesn't appear to be too much of an issue. Were the rules to change tomorrow we would have more teams considering other options, but as we don't have all teams on one engine now, we wont see all teams adopt the new "universally" accepted optimum even in the long term.

...

What I think we are seeing in FSAE is the inevitability of universities becoming more heavily involved with the competition. The competition was started with the intent of improving practical skills of students in an extra-curricular activity. Now the best programs see the value in integrating the FSAE project into the curriculum. This helps justify the internal cost and adds to the teaching outcomes. Unfortunately for the initial intent Universities have two main goals - Teaching and Research. Developing little racing vehicles with no restrictions on manufacturing techniques and quite open rules allows a lot of scope for research. IT also allows for the best kind of research that is directly involved with teaching. The trend for university teaching is to blend the teaching and research together.

University research at its best is designed to help develop the cumulitive knowledge of mankind. This starts to make some of the restrictions of FSAE seem pointless. Why restrict engine choices in a competition in which fuel economy is increasingly important? Are we to expect that the best internal combustion engine technology is a four stroke petrol engine?

Likewise we have a problem with project supervision. One of the reasons that research informed teaching is so valuable in Universities is that the lecturer and students learn more working besides each other rather than "I speak, you listen". As a faculty advisor I find it very hard to strike an appropriate balance between mentoring while teaching and following the intent of the rulebook. If I detail the design of an automotive component in a design class (that happens to be a part on an FSAE car so that I can run students through a familiar example) am I breaking the rules of the competition? What if I correct their bearing calculations in an assignment that has a question on upright bearing selection? What if I show them one way of curing a composite part? What if I am in the room while a design is being discussed? Where does an idea originate when a room is discussing the pros and cons of a particular design? I would like to think I sit to the right side of the rules, but there are a lot of grey areas.

It sometimes seems to me that the goal of the competition is for the students to gain an education despite their universities, rather than encouraging well developed teaching approaches such as teaching-involved research and active mentoring.

One of my favourite changes to the comp rules, back when I was competing was when DAQ systems no longer had to be included in the cost report if they were not required to run the vehicle. This was a great move that encouraged the sort of testing that students would do in the work place. I see no great disadvantage in rules that increase the options teams must consider, rules that increase the amount of work that can be done on the cars, rules that increase potential research, or rules that more closely align the goals of a university and its race team.

Kev

Rex Chan

04-18-2012, 10:17 AM

Kevin: I don't see any problems with faculty advisers getting involved. I wish ours were more hands on, or had the experience to be hands on (though ours is very good at helping us out with admin stuff, so I'm not complaining).

I see that rule as a way for students to stop advisor's from having too much influence when they are not wanted. if everyone is happy with their advisor getting more hands-on I don;t have a problem with it. Some people think FSAE'ers should learn from the very basics (and thus repeat mistakes past). I do not hold this view: I'd rather learn from someone who had already done it and learnt the lessons. And I'd rather someone do a better job than me because they learnt from my mistakes, than someone fail cos I didn't help them out.

About teaching vs research: I'm pretty sure our uni sees FSAE as teaching, with no research value. Thus, we don't get a lot of support. But I tend to agree with that view: there's nothing we do that's even close to research level.

And I def agree with this: "It sometimes seems to me that the goal of the competition is for the students to gain an education despite their universities". At Melbourne, we KNOW we don't get enough hands on stuff, so we're doing a TAFE course at Holmesglen, outside the uni system.

04-20-2012, 09:17 PM

AxelRipper,

"... an innovative concept that is so crazy that it works. Would you say that the Deltawing is a good example of this?"

Yes, I look forward to seeing it at Le Mans. The crazy thing is that Ben Bowlby (spelling?) came up with the idea because the Indycar committee asked for something really "innovative and exciting". But then they went for the same-old-same-old...!!!

Bowlby's intention was a car with half the horsepower and fuel consumption of a normal Indycar, but equal performance (laptimes). I think he was holding back a bit, because I reckon same performance can be had with about one third hp and fuel (hint: aero!). Anyway, no surprise that ACO are the only organisers to let him enter, though I think only as a demonstration(?). ACO have always had awards for efficiency, and gave big encouragements to get diesel into mainstream racing.

BTW, FSAE teams looking for good "aero inspiration" could look at the Deltawing, but with normal outboard front wheels.

(Also, that "24hoursoflemons" looks like a great educational experience, with lots of fun and no big deal about who wins. And Van Valkenburgh's is my pick.)
~~~o0o~~~

Kevin,

"we have one of the best methods for limiting performance already in the rules
... shrink the restrictor
... add to that a points advantage for using less fuel..."

Agreed. And there is another even bigger one...

I reckon by far the biggest influence on speeds, and hence safety, is track layout. Essentially, without any change at all to the Rulebook, FSAE can be made either extremely safe, or horribly deadly, just by changing the track layout. (And please note this is NOT any sort of attack, or even criticism, of any officials.)

So if the teams start turning up with highly efficient diesel two-strokes (or whatever) that manage 200+hp through the ~20mm restrictor, then just put an extra slalom in the middle of the main straight. Nothing new here. That is why the Mulsanne straight is no longer straight.
~~~o0o~~~

Tobias,

"There is just no way to teach or train "outside of the box thinking" in my opinion. You are able to or you are not."

I must disagree (but in a nice, constructive way http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif).

I think the above is a bit like saying "there is no way to teach how to hit a ball with a bat. You are able, or not...". I am sure that any tennis, golf, cricket, whatever coach would agree that some students pick it up faster than others. But they would also say that all students improve with training.

IMO, whether it is "hitting a ball" or "outside the box thinking", improvement comes mostly with lots of practise of the basics, together with the occasional voice in the background giving small corrections. One thing I am certain of is that if the student is never allowed to practise, then they will never become exceptionally good.

Z