Throttle Position Rule Change Feedback?

[Kirk Feldkamp]

Hi everyone,

Undoubtedly everyone that has read the 2006 rules has seen the proposed rule change relating to the placement of the throttle within the intake system. I was wondering if anyone has sent Kathleen and the rules committee any comments regarding this proposal. Even if you haven't, what are your thoughts on the proposal? Good or bad, I'd like to hear everyone's opinions.

-Kirk

[Kirk Feldkamp]

Hi everyone,

Undoubtedly everyone that has read the 2006 rules has seen the proposed rule change relating to the placement of the throttle within the intake system. I was wondering if anyone has sent Kathleen and the rules committee any comments regarding this proposal. Even if you haven't, what are your thoughts on the proposal? Good or bad, I'd like to hear everyone's opinions.

-Kirk

[Marshall Grice]

I think it's a good idea, if for nothing more then to be environmentally friendly(prevent turbo oil burning). It seems like an obvious advantage for turbo cars but I'd like to see the rule changed so that N/A cars could run the stock ITB's and just have a restriced air box. I think it would go a long way towards leveling the field between forced induction and N/A while at the same time greatly reducing the amount of work it takes to get a functioning engine.

[Kirk Feldkamp]

Marshall,

Can you explain your reasoning why one setup versus the other would create an advantage? The restrictor limits the total available mass flow (and therefore power), so ITBs wouldn't matter either way. I agree that allowing teams to use the stock ITB's would help teams focus on the real goal - more testing and development! There is nothing in the proposed rule change that requires to use an ITB setup. If a team thinks it would have advantages using a simgle throttle body over an ITB setup, then they'd be free to go that route. The other advantage I see in allowing the stock ITBs is that there is a greatly reduced risk of a throttle sticking open or failing.


Anyone else going to chime in? Did anyone write the rules committee?!

-Kirk

[Cody the Genius]

The reason this is an advantage for the turbo guys is simply dP. The highest pressure difference I can get naturally aspirated is one atmosphere (complete vacuum in plenum) where as with a turbo I can get a whole lot more air through when I apply ten pounds of boost or more. The thing is, the air through the restrictor can go supersonic so there is no ultimate limit to how much air you can get through it, it just takes a lot of umph.

Turbo=higher pressure difference across the restrictor=more air =more power -> NA=slow

[Garlic]

Apparently Cody you haven't read the rule change proposal properly.

[Jersey Tom]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The thing is, the air through the restrictor can go supersonic so there is no ultimate limit to how much air you can get through it, it just takes a lot of umph. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not true.

[Marshall Grice]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Can you explain your reasoning why one setup versus the other would create an advantage? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well with the current rules ITB's are not possible because all the air has to go through 1 restrictor. My previous post is kind of confusing. i don't mean to say that the proposed rule needs to be changed to require itb's. I think it would be nice to allow the use of ITB's, and I think it already does that assuming of course that "they" dont' get to crazy with the rules interpretation (throttle body vs. throttle bodies). The advantage that I see with the new proposed rule is that you can run a large airbox and not pay the penalty of poor throttle response that we currently deal with. Also the restrictor is in "clean" air flow by not having a throttle body in front of it which could provide marginal increases in air flow.

The advantage for the turbo guys would be in reliability and easy of implementing a turbo system. I agree that both N/A and forced induction would make the same max power.

[pengulns2001]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The reason this is an advantage for the turbo guys is simply dP. The highest pressure difference I can get naturally aspirated is one atmosphere (complete vacuum in plenum) where as with a turbo I can get a whole lot more air through when I apply ten pounds of boost or more. The thing is, the air through the restrictor can go supersonic so there is no ultimate limit to how much air you can get through it, it just takes a lot of umph.

Turbo=higher pressure difference across the restrictor=more air =more power -&gt; NA=slow </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


uh... wow

[Homemade WRX]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Marshall Grice:
I think it's a good idea, if for nothing more then to be environmentally friendly(prevent turbo oil burning). It seems like an obvious advantage for turbo cars but I'd like to see the rule changed so that N/A cars could run the stock ITB's and just have a restriced air box. I think it would go a long way towards leveling the field between forced induction and N/A while at the same time greatly reducing the amount of work it takes to get a functioning engine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree and really like the idea, as the rule change would basically made turbocharging the only way to be competitive in the power category

[Homemade WRX]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jersey Tom:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The thing is, the air through the restrictor can go supersonic so there is no ultimate limit to how much air you can get through it, it just takes a lot of umph. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not true. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
it ispossible. you just need a super sonic nozzle (rocket science)... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
seriously

[Marshall Grice]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I agree and really like the idea, as the rule change would basically made turbocharging the only way to be competitive in the power category </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

...but turbos are already the only way to be competitive in the power catagory. how does changing the rule change that?

[Kirk Feldkamp]

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

I agree and really like the idea, as the rule change would basically made turbocharging the only way to be competitive in the power category </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would tend to agree in a dyno competition... but shouldn't it then be the case that turbo cars dominate across the board in FSAE as the rules stand right now?

Within the framework of FSAE, there are many factors that contribute to the choice of "to turbo or not to turbo". I would argue that the reason so few teams use a turbo is due to the fact that there is the added complexity, weight, and cost associated with the design, development, and manufacturing of a turbo system. Those tradeoffs will always be present in FSAE. I would point toward the perennial top finishers from the various competitions worldwide as proof that very few competitive teams use turbos right now. The counterpoint arguements will of course be Cornell and Wollongong; but on the whole, NA cars have generally placed higher than turbo cars.

A big problem with the current rules is that they in fact place a bias against turbos in that the throttle positioning quite clearly causes turbo systems significant problems that NA cars don't have to deal with (oil control, compressor surge, etc). If the point of the restrictor is to limit maximum airflow into the engine (and therefore cap power production capability), then they shouldn't restrict the placement of the throttle. Take a look at the rules for the 24 Hours of LeMans and ALMS. They require restrictors on both NA and turbo cars. The restrictors do the job they are intended to do, and nobody will dispute that. Those rules say nothing of throttle placement within the system because it just doesn't matter.

Anyone else care to comment? Does anyone have any other concerns with the proposed rule change?

-Kirk

[Jersey Tom]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">it ispossible. you just need a super sonic nozzle (rocket science)... Wink
seriously </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not sure if you're being sarcastic.. but its seriously not possible. Or at least what Cody was talking about. Once that 20mm orifice is choked at transonic flow, that's it. You aren't pulling any more air through it afterwards, no matter what we do.

In addition, the 20mm orifice is going to choke and stay at Mach 1 flow. Downstream of that yes the flow will accelerate supersonically briefly, but rapidly thereafter you will get a normal shock wave which rapidly transitions the flow back subsonic, with an associated substantial loss in total head. Its impossible for you to pull supersonic flow even at the outlet of your venturi without a pressure ratio greater than 2.0, and you won't get anywhere near that with the engines we run.

[Matt Gignac]

Even if you manage to have a venturi with supersonic conditions throughout the diffusing sections, which can be possible, but not likely given the exit (i.e. plenum) conditions, the maximum mass flow rate is only a function of the restrictor cross sectional area, as well as stagnation temperature and pressure. For air with k=1.4 and R=8314/28.8, m(dot)max=.0404*A(throat)*(stag pressure)/sqrt(stag temp).

Of course this is a 1-d idealization, and assumes isentropic and all that fun stuff, but this is an upper bound of what we can achieve. Unless I'm missing something, any 2D effects would only introduce problems to your flow, like seperation, or turbulence. At least that's why we justify having a very shallow taper on the venturi, to approach a 1d flow.

Matt Gignac
McGill Racing Team

[Homemade WRX]

as far as sonic flow occurs at the constriction point when pressure has reached a 2:1(dependant on atmospheric gas) ratio on either side of the constriction point. The only way to go beyond this is to use a supersonic nozzle, which is rocket science...we just finished studying this in our internal combustion engines course...

and what I was saying for power differences is the power put out by many of the turbo teams isn't that much better than a decent/good NA motor...all the dyno sheets appear to do is shift the powerband as sonic flow/choke flow has been reached at the restrictor...

I'm not knocking the turbo cars now (as there are some really good ones) but there are also some really good NA cars too...if the new proposal goes through, I just see the NA cars becoming way underpowered...more so than the usual 5-10 seen now(with exception of the well developed turbo teams)...

[Garlic]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Homemade WRX:
.if the new proposal goes through, I just see the NA cars becoming way underpowered...more so than the usual 5-10 seen now(with exception of the well developed turbo teams)... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How? How? How?

[Cody the Genius]

Ok, a lot of my post was retarded-
Since the compressor inlet is still on the engine side of the restrictor then the highest dP is still one atmosphere no matter what, meaning there is really no overall power gain for either turbo or NA. I misread the rule proposal as I gave it a cursory glance and thought that the turbo could blow through the restrictor- a hellacious advantage- but that is obviously not the case. That being said there should be no advantage one way or the other as far as peak power is concerned. I can't read- my bad, Garlic called me on it.

The idea of a super sonic nozzle is a real thing. Takes a lot of pressure difference and you are most likely not going to see that with the 14.7 psi you get from the atmosphere; especially with the harmonically dominated plenum. The diminishing returns of the trans-sonic (highly compressible) regions mean that when an engine gets near this non linear region of mass flow, VE drops like a brick and the motor can't suck no more. With a lot of pressure difference (i.e. burning rocket fuel, compressors) there is no limit to how much air you can flow, as long as it is not solid. Planes can go supersonic and there is little difference between the surface of a wing and the inside of a tube as far as the fluid is concerned.

Any how- for this application, with the rules as stated, don't worry about supersonic nozzles.

And now back to my hooked on phonics- I did come from the literate county in Georgia

[James Waltman]

Kirk, why are you so enthusiastic about this rule change?
"God damn the Pusher man"�
Just kidding buddy. Drop me a line when you get a chance.

My understanding is that the restrictor is meant to keep the cars somewhat safe by limiting the peak hp. I don't think that this proposed rules change will make the cars any less safe.
I don't think that the cars need anymore power than is currently possible but I don't think that mounting the turbo in the proper location will make more peak power. It will make it easier to implement a turbo when you don't have to do it contrary to what it was designed for.

I think that this is a reasonable rules change. It is well thought out and well written. You should speak up to the rules committee and let them know what you think – although the official deadline has passed.

[raska]

My main concern will be the possibility of distasteful 'anti-surge valve' sounds. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[illiterate]

Please forgive my ignorance. What is an ITB?

[Kirk Feldkamp]

no problem... it's "individual throttle body"

-Kirk

[Jersey Tom]

Yes, 'supersonic' nozzles, aka deLaval nozzles do exist. You can model your venturi after one if you want. In fact, pretty much any nozzle you design with a converging and diverging end and a pressure ratio great enough to choke the throat, you will get supersonic flow. Its just a matter of geometry. Subsonic, as cross-section increases, velocity decreases. Supersonic, as cross-section increases, velocity increases. Obviously some nozzle designs are better than others to prevent flow separation, etc.

But the supersonic flow only lasts so long. In rockets that's fine, the flow only needs to be critically expanded past the outlet of the nozzle to be developing max thrust.

For us, you will lose that supersonic velocity very quickly in a fairly sudden, turbulent manner while still in the nozzle or intake manifold. You can't escape it.

[Homemade WRX]

well, I too misread the rules although I do have a pretty crazy idea as to how a turbo could boost its potential with such a setup...I'll have to to think further on it, as it just hit me...also need to check the rules to be sure it's ok http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[pengulns2001]

yeah i think we are all thinking it but no one will say it... it will be banned for sure for next 08

[Homemade WRX]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pengulns2001:
yeah i think we are all thinking it but no one will say it... it will be banned for sure for next 08 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
lol...I think we are all thinking it but no one is saying it...
anyhow, I'm really interested to see what my IC engine's profs say...one has 30 years of building professional race engines and the other is a rocket scientist...
it will be a learing experience to say the least

[pengulns2001]

were all hoping no one else figures it out, includding the rules commity

[RKemmet]

I think they did think of it with the method for check the restrictor, where the engine has to be running and when the put the restrictor checker in it has to kill the engine instantly. you could then have a smaller restrictor that was maybe oval shaped so you could say there is still air passing by and what not... but i was thinking similarly..

[Jersey Tom]

Shouldn't have even mentioned you have somethin devilish in mind. Now I'm gonna go figure it out haha

[pengulns2001]

its pretty easy to make the engine stall instantly under any condition you want... were all using EFI these days... but your way off base from what i was talking about... the restrictor will be exactly to spec (20mm round) its not cheating, its just using the rules to your advantage

[pengulns2001]

if they do pass this rule though next year will be one of the most inovative as far as powertrain packages go, it will be fun to see

[Dan G]

50 gallon "plenums" anyone?

[Wright D]

Just how big would a Plenum have to be?

I did some quick calculations, just for fun.

1 US gallons = 3785.4118 cc

50 US gallons = 189272.09 cc

189272.09 cc/(300cc/rev) = 630.91 revs

630.92 revs/(12000 revs/min) = 0.0526 min = 3.15 sec.

I'd rather not carry around a 50 gallon pressure vessel to help damp the flow through the restrictor. Considering 50 gallons is just over three seconds of WOT at red line and 100% VE. But eliminating pressure pulses could help out single cylinder engines.

[Dan G]

How's about 6000 rpm, the briggs can't rev much higher than that. So 6 seconds of "less" restricted operation. This is obviously ignoring any flow through the restrictor during this time, or the pressure decay of the plenum as it approaches vacuum, so we're assuming the engine is breathing from a 50 gallon ziplock bag.

But still, how long are most of the straits? 1-2 seconds max? I'm not actually suggesting a 50 gallon plenum, but I'd certainly experiment with the idea of upsizing it from the conventional volume.

[Homemade WRX]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wright D:
Just how big would a Plenum have to be?

I did some quick calculations, just for fun.

1 US gallons = 3785.4118 cc

50 US gallons = 189272.09 cc

189272.09 cc/(300cc/rev) = 630.91 revs

630.92 revs/(12000 revs/min) = 0.0526 min = 3.15 sec.

I'd rather not carry around a 50 gallon pressure vessel to help damp the flow through the restrictor. Considering 50 gallons is just over three seconds of WOT at red line and 100% VE. But eliminating pressure pulses could help out single cylinder engines. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
shouldn't your calculation be for 6,000 as ever per how a 4 stroke works... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
12,000=6,000 intake valve openings http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
just helping the enemies http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

[Garlic]

He already did that. 300cc/min instead of 600 cc/min.

Is it just me or is this thread riddled with people who aren't paying attention?

[Kirk Feldkamp]

50 gallon plenums? You guys crack me up. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

So this discussion begs the question: why aren't you using a "50 gallon plenum" on an NA car now? On the surface it looks like all the airflow and power production benefits of a gigantic plenum would hold true with the current rules. Packaging seems like the biggest downside of this approach. If the rules were changed as per the current proposal, how would the packaging constraints change? I would agree there is a small benefit in not having the throttle before the plenum on a NA engine. Throttle transients at lower RPMs wouldn't be drawing from a completely evacuated plenum. Wouldn't that generally even out the playing field between NA and turbo engines? The maximum power potential is still the same.

The only way to get more than the "rules intended" amount of airflow through the restrictor is by pressurizing the inlet side of the restrictor. Even a 1 or 2 psi boost before the restrictor makes a BIG difference. Ram air is completely legal within the current rules...

-Kirk

[pengulns2001]

we will be using ram air this year but at our speeds dont expect much of a gain... but we will see, you cant use a 50 gallon plenum now because you wouldnt have ANY throttle response, with throttles in the runners you can have an infinatly large plenum without sacrificing throttle response

[Wright D]

What is the ram air effect of a 45 mph car at sea level and 70 deg F out side?

If we assume a 100% efficient diffuser we end up with 0.54 psi pressure increase.

[pengulns2001]

exactly, our only gain will be getting cooler cleaner air from a "high pressure zone" in our bodywork, instead of picking up air that would be right next to our hot aluminum oil can and a few inches infront of our hot turbo, hidden behind a ghetto square hole in our bodywork... its really a design points thing more than a functional thing

[Jose Robledo]

Hi!! I think that this whole throttlebody position thing is more intended to make the cars a little safer. The fact that they are requirinq side impact protection for any part of the intake below a certain height is proof of that. With the current position any brake or leak in the system downstream of the T.B. means an instant wide open throttle runaway engine, it has happened before. Either way it's a relief to see some changes like this so that innovation and creativity rears it's head again!! ja! ja!

[Homemade WRX]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Garlic:
He already did that. 300cc/min instead of 600 cc/min.

Is it just me or is this thread riddled with people who aren't paying attention? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
sorry, just posting too soon...still was waking up and was heading off for an auto-x...

[Garlic]

I understand... getting too excited about your new 50 gallon plenum http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[drivetrainUW-Platt]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dan G:
How's about 6000 rpm, the briggs can't rev much higher than that. So 6 seconds of "less" restricted operation. This is obviously ignoring any flow through the restrictor during this time, or the pressure decay of the plenum as it approaches vacuum, so we're assuming the engine is breathing from a 50 gallon ziplock bag.

But still, how long are most of the straits? 1-2 seconds max? I'm not actually suggesting a 50 gallon plenum, but I'd certainly experiment with the idea of upsizing it from the conventional volume. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope you guys aren't going to rev that Briggs that high with the stock flywheel...I know the guys that use the older Kohler engines for garden tractor pulling have to swap out the cast iron flywheels after like 4500rpm or they will explode.... http://members.aol.com/tractorpulling/flywheelbreakage/flybreak.htm

[absolutepressure]

That shit's intense! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

[KU_Racing]

does anyone have updated status for this rule change? like is it actually gonna happen??

[Homemade WRX]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KU_Racing:
does anyone have updated status for this rule change? like is it actually gonna happen?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm wondering the same thing. So I think I'm going to drop an email. I'll let you know what I find out. Although I'm pretty sure they'll tell me to wait until next september...

[Kirk Feldkamp]

It's been tabled for further discussion for next year... I'll give everyone a full update when I get a chance tomorrow.

-Kirk

[Blake_DFSAE]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by illiterate:
Please forgive my ignorance. What is an ITB? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

individual throttle bodies as found on the stock bike motor

[Kirk Feldkamp]

Hi everyone. I figured everyone wants an update on the rule change proposal. I don't want to misquote anyone or give any wrong information, so below is the unmodified letter I recieved from the head of the rules committee, Michael Royce. I'll comment on it when I get a chance. Until then, happy reading. Any comments you have are appreciated.

-------------------------------------------
Dear Kirk,
This is to let you know the status of the Rules change you proposed on the location of the restrictor and throttle body for Formula SAE.

Steve Daum of SAE-I only received one official response from a university. This team mentioned the oiling problem and, on the assumption that it would also allow one throttle per cylinder, was in favour of the change.

We had input from a leading Tier 1 supplier who is a major supporter and sponsor of FSAE. We also discussed the change with two powertrain Design Judges, who are engine experts. Although all were generally supportive of the proposed change, the major concern of all three is the lack of effort into and understanding of powertrains by FSAE teams.

We also consulted with three faculty advisors, two of whom are past members of the Rules Committee, are very well respected in the competition, and use, or have used turbochargers. The third is a world-renowned engine design expert. One saw "opportunities"� for the turbo brigade, which "would probably be outlawed by the Rules Committee after the first year"�, one was against the proposal as he felt it would give too much of an advantage to turbocharged engines, and one had mixed feelings.

Currently, we have a good balance between naturally aspirated and turbocharged, between single, twin and four cylinder engines, and between gasoline and E-85 fuels. The Rules Committee is very reluctant to upset this balance, and is against any Rules change that would make it virtually mandatory to have a turbocharged engine to be really competitive, or even give the perception that it is mandatory to have a turbocharged engine to be really competitive.

If accepted, the change you have proposed would be the most significant change to the Rules in many years. Hence a cautionary approach is appropriate.

We believe that there is a cure for the oiling problem, and that the technical staff at Honeywell is aware of the solution.

Therefore, based on the above, and the desire by the SAE-I staff to have the 2007 Rules published before the SAE Congress, the Rules Committee has decided that more discussion is required and that the proposal will be left open as an item to be again considered for the 2008 Rules.

Michael Royce,
Chairman,
FSAE Rules Committee.
-------------------------------------------

-Kirk

[Homemade WRX]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turbotwig:
Hi everyone. I figured everyone wants an update on the rule change proposal. I don't want to misquote anyone or give any wrong information, so below is the unmodified letter I recieved from the head of the rules committee, Michael Royce. I'll comment on it when I get a chance. Until then, happy reading. Any comments you have are appreciated.

-------------------------------------------
Dear Kirk,
This is to let you know the status of the Rules change you proposed on the location of the restrictor and throttle body for Formula SAE.

Steve Daum of SAE-I only received one official response from a university. This team mentioned the oiling problem and, on the assumption that it would also allow one throttle per cylinder, was in favour of the change.

We had input from a leading Tier 1 supplier who is a major supporter and sponsor of FSAE. We also discussed the change with two powertrain Design Judges, who are engine experts. Although all were generally supportive of the proposed change, the major concern of all three is the lack of effort into and understanding of powertrains by FSAE teams.

We also consulted with three faculty advisors, two of whom are past members of the Rules Committee, are very well respected in the competition, and use, or have used turbochargers. The third is a world-renowned engine design expert. One saw "opportunities"� for the turbo brigade, which "would probably be outlawed by the Rules Committee after the first year"�, one was against the proposal as he felt it would give too much of an advantage to turbocharged engines, and one had mixed feelings.

Currently, we have a good balance between naturally aspirated and turbocharged, between single, twin and four cylinder engines, and between gasoline and E-85 fuels. The Rules Committee is very reluctant to upset this balance, and is against any Rules change that would make it virtually mandatory to have a turbocharged engine to be really competitive, or even give the perception that it is mandatory to have a turbocharged engine to be really competitive.

If accepted, the change you have proposed would be the most significant change to the Rules in many years. Hence a cautionary approach is appropriate.

We believe that there is a cure for the oiling problem, and that the technical staff at Honeywell is aware of the solution.

Therefore, based on the above, and the desire by the SAE-I staff to have the 2007 Rules published before the SAE Congress, the Rules Committee has decided that more discussion is required and that the proposal will be left open as an item to be again considered for the 2008 Rules.

Michael Royce,
Chairman,
FSAE Rules Committee.
-------------------------------------------

-Kirk </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
having read that, I think that ITB's for NA and a single TB for turbo/supercharged applications would be a good comprimise...
it also still cures the oil issue with turbos...

[Homemade WRX]

well here's my email:
"The Rules Committee has decided that the intake system rules will remain unchanged for the 2007 competitions. However, the proposed change is still under consideration for 2008.

Below is a copy of the note that we sent the gentleman who proposed the change. He happens to work for Honeywell (Garrett).
"
same thing you got was the below...

I'm bummed, as I had already started ground work on running a turbocharged motor this way...
does garlic believe there would have been a turbocharged advantage now? http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
still not explaining my idea...