Rule Changes to Mix Things Up

[Denny Trimble]

So, the rules have been very static for the last several years, with the only changes being safety-related, for the most part.

We're seeing a lot of convergence in car designs, with the recent success of RMIT and Delft's singles being the most ground-breaking development in my opinion. Aero has been used on-and-off but hasn't shown itself to be a "must-have".

Why don't we discuss changes to the rules that would make things more interesting, and perhaps require a major shift in the design of the cars.

Are the aero restrictions (edge radii, not rearward of the rear wheels, etc) really needed?

Paul VanValkenburg suggested in his column a few years back that there be an oval event, just to challenge students to come up with a setup for that unique situation. That would have people scrambling!

Two-strokes? Rotaries? Diesels? Hybrids? Why not!

Another suggestion I heard from Pat Clarke was to throw 100 points from the endurance event onto the design event score. This would place more emphasis on engineering and less on development (and luck).

I'm sure you all have great ideas out there. Let's hear them!

[Denny Trimble]

So, the rules have been very static for the last several years, with the only changes being safety-related, for the most part.

We're seeing a lot of convergence in car designs, with the recent success of RMIT and Delft's singles being the most ground-breaking development in my opinion. Aero has been used on-and-off but hasn't shown itself to be a "must-have".

Why don't we discuss changes to the rules that would make things more interesting, and perhaps require a major shift in the design of the cars.

Are the aero restrictions (edge radii, not rearward of the rear wheels, etc) really needed?

Paul VanValkenburg suggested in his column a few years back that there be an oval event, just to challenge students to come up with a setup for that unique situation. That would have people scrambling!

Two-strokes? Rotaries? Diesels? Hybrids? Why not!

Another suggestion I heard from Pat Clarke was to throw 100 points from the endurance event onto the design event score. This would place more emphasis on engineering and less on development (and luck).

I'm sure you all have great ideas out there. Let's hear them!

[Matt Gignac]

I like the idea of taking points from endurance to design.

I think a good way to go about it could be to give points according to a formula (such as for cost, autocross, etc) for a few key design parameters.

For instance, we could have weight and horsepower (or maybe area under the torque curve for a certain rpm range or something) as two design criteria. This would make teams seriously think over whether a heavy 4 cylinder or a light mono will be optimal. Basically, you'd have the Delft's and such setting the curve for weight, and the likes of Cornell for power. Design judging is not completely objective, and this would benefit teams that worked hard to optimize a certain aspect of their car, but have a hard time selling this point to the judges (whether this is good or not I dont know).

If it were up to me, we'd be judged, with a similar formula as that of cost, on the following:
weight
CG height
Horsepower (or torque, or area under the torque curve, or...)
Chassis torsional stiffness (this might be tough to measure for everyone at competition though, but some kind of adjustable rig could be made with many hub mounting options, and it would be nice to standardize test methods and compare where we stand to other teams)

Matt Gignac
McGill Racing Team

[Jon Weir]

I think it would be wild to have an oval event run like a qualifying session. Something like a warm up lap or 2 followed by a timed lap or 2. Let 2 drivers get a crack at it, and take the best time.

I bet we'd start seeing things like interchangable fuel tank mounts (hang it off the left side) and a little more aero (depending on track size). Maybe even some more side mount motors.

We'd have to have way more adjustability, and you'd have to know how to set up your car properly. When will I get to see an FSAE car with some positive camber!?

But I think we have a good balance between design and enduro points. I think that's what makes the competition what it is, as opposed to a science fair. It still has to work!

[scooter2131]

I agree that taking emphasis off of the endurance and increasing the points for design would make this more of an engineering competition. But there is something to be said for cars that are robust enough to make it through the endurance race.

This year was the first that we finished endurance and in fact our car is still performing time after time throughout the summer with almost no maintenance. While this is a great accomplishment for our team, as discussed on the Colin Chapman thread and our 527lb weight, it shows that we may have over built a lot of parts on our car. This was good for us because we needed to establish our program and prove that we can compete with the current setup of the competition, but we obviously haven't optimized our designs (I could go on about lack of resources, personnel and the troubles with having an all undergrad team but there are other threads for that). In this respect I think a lot of teams would be hurt if more emphasis was placed on design as some teams can't spend all their time just researching in order to stay in the runnings for design points because they would never get a car physically built.

Everyone is going to have different viewpoints on the matter, but I think we would not enjoy the competition as much if points were taken away from physical performance and placed on engineering design. After all, how many times do we think we have the greatest ideas in the world, but can't get them to work. In the real world (not research, but industry) we ultimately have to produce products that perform. The way the competition is set up now we can bust our asses designing if we want and be rewarded with winning design or we can boast about finishing endurance and possibly taking a higher place in the competition. To each his (or her) own.

I know there will be issues (logistics, business interests, as well as personal issues) with my following suggestion, but it's obvious that it would provide a more standardized way of evaluating teams on engineering ability: Require a certain engine and/or tire for all competitors.

I will diverge again and say that doing this would help categorize which schools exhibit the best engineering ability as everyone would have to squeeze the most performance they could out of the same product. However, I think that the point of this competition is to leave as much responsibility and decision making in the hands of the students as possible and thus expose us to as much learning as possible in the few years that we are involved in formula SAE.

I guess I really don't care what rules are decided upon, I'm just glad that I've had a chance to be involved in what I regard as the best way to prepare me for the rest of my life. This competition will bring out the best that each team has to offer. Sorry my thoughts may have wandered some, but I felt compelled to post instead of working for my paycheck. Flame away.

[Patrick W. Crane]

I think that the endurance scoring is pretty good the way it is but i would not be opposed to adding a bit of weight to design. Why not just add 50 or 75 pts to design?

Also, i think it would be great to see the scope of the event broadened. why not trow in slalom and breaking tests? or why not combine accel and braking into an accel for 75m then brake as hard as possible?

[TG]

I think an oval would pose certain safety issues of it's own as the cars would certainly be able to acceive higher speeds on one. The edge radii makes sense in terms of safety, but I'm sort of clueless on the fact that the rear wings have to be in front of the back of the rear tires. Front wings extending in front of the front wheels increase the sweep area of a cars turn much more than a rear wing a reasonable amount behind the rear wheels.

I think the cost score is alright. We first and foremost want to design something that actually works. While working on setting up a class for our team, one of the guys who used to captain the U of T Austin team, commented that a class they had over there just didn't work because some of the students would just design the hell out of parts that didn't work. They would get good grades in the class because they did a lot of design work, but they couldn't use it for their car. What good is that in the real world if you design something that doesn't work?

It has been commented by many design judges that there just isn't the amount of time to really look at the cars in depth either. That might change with the smaller east/west events next year, but that is to be seen.

I think it would be great to get diesels and hybrids in the mix, but I'm not sure how they would incorperate it.

[nathan s]

I really like the idea of being able to use different types of engines. It would be a lot of fun to play with a 600 cc wankel. Even a diesel would be fun. Our ability to do engine design is the major thing that sets FSAE apart from Baja, so why must we only be limited to 4 strokes.

Another thing I would like to see, is a bit more of a series competition. With East and West coming into play, I think it would be neat to have the top finishers from each of the 7 competitions to have a championship or something.

[Kamil S]

I would personally like to see less restrictions on intake air cooling. If I am not mistaken, you cannot use anything but ambient air to cool down your intake, and that makes it only useful with a forced induction system.

It would be nice to see the various designs that teams can impose for intake cooling systems!

[clif2001]

This competition is full of great engineering students with infinite ideas and outstanding design abilities. If we wanted, we could all spend much more time in the design process and then build the cars all the way up until competition, just for the sake of having a great looking car with lots of nice gadgets. I'm sure if there was more points emphasis on design there would be a lot of schools that did just that, but that would be boring. As I see it there are two reasons why there is so much emphasis on the dynamic events:

1) A great design means nothing if it is not fast and reliable.

2) It's really fun!!!

I don't think this competition would be very exciting if it emphasised design more than performance.

That being said, I think it is a great idea to open up the design restrictions (allow different engine types, etc...). I'm all for new concepts and design ideas, as long as the first place team proves that they can hang with the top track competitors.

[Greg H]

The design judges can't be too wrong, can they? Look at the top placers in design and compare that to the top finishers in the endurance. Recognize a couple of names? I think good design and testing brings out good performance and the judges can tell when you've got it right. All design judging except for the finals is done before dynamic events after all. I don't think adding more points to design is going to do anything at all.

If anything, get rid of fuel economy. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Wilso]

I'll agree there is a correlation between design winners and endurance winners but I think it is due to more than just the actual design of the car. Those teams that have their act together usually have the car finished early, present good design posters and content, and have the time to fine tune both driver and car. Thus they do well in most events. We (UT Austin) only received 80 points in design, but I don't believe it was poor design that kept our car from being more competetive in the dynamic events. If we as drivers had more practice we could have easily finished better.

I say fuel economy should be worth more!! I guess I should we got 3rd, honestly we're not sure how that happened. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[adrial]

Allowing rotaries, diesels, etc would be interesting.

But the motorcycle package that most teams use makes it "easy" for a first year or small team to build a car.

I think it would be interesting to require forced induction engines to be of smaller displacement, but allow a restrictor such that they can still produce as much power as the big natural 4's. The result would be the same power out of a lighter powerplant. I think the result would be more teams going the turbo route, hopefully resulting in more innovations in that department.

[Jersey Tom]

No CNC machining allowed.

That'd make things interesting real quick.

[rjwoods77]

I think there are a ton of unexplored engine and transmission combos that people seem unwilling to try out because people are scared. They offer alot of advantages in packaging and weight along with subsystem reduction that make things easier to engineer. RMIT said it best. It is almost too easy to make and exhaust for a single as an example. I dont think there is anything wrong with the rules in all honesty. I just think there is a general lack of creativity and "monkey see, monkey do" attitudes. All to often discussion of good ideas is canceled out by talk of "well, we know this package will work because the top teams do it, so for that reason we dont want to stray to far from the beaten(to absolute death) path.". Just because the top teams do it well doesnt mean you can. Just because the top teams do it doesnt mean you should. You arent going to beat them at there own game and copying their car is really just gay so try a new avenue. What they do workd well for them. Find out what works well for you. Not what you can just get by on. Hats off to the few teams out there that take that route(RMIT,Delft,WWU,us http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, and any other team that i know does it but cant pull it out of my ass right now) Hats off to the team that absolutely dominate(cornell,texas teams,west aus,uw,etc.). This competition would suck ass if we didnt have teams that beat others up so bad. Armwrestling a 5 year old is not something to celebrate. But knocking a prime team on there ass is.(when and if it ever happens).

[Colin]

Trust the Americans to want an oval track! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But seriously I reckon the way to see more innovation would be to allow teams to make more substantial changes to their cars for the different dynamic events

[Denny Trimble]

Cornell was pretty creative last year with their multi-position bellcranks. They probably got an extra inch or two of ride height by moving the pullrod / pushrod to a different location on the bellcrank, for the acceleration event.

I don't think they kept that system on the '05 car though...

[Travis Garrison]

I think opening up a diesel section, and maybe bumping the emphasis on accel and fuel economy would make for some pretty interesting entries...but as it stands at the moment I don't think people want to try much with their motors because the rewards aren't really there...why risk it when you can be competitive with a 60-70 hp F4?

Powered ground effects would be fun http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I imagine that would make HP more important in a hurry (how much HP to divert to the fan and how much to the wheels) of course keeping speeds down would get challenging all too quickly...

Ditching the steel roll hoop would be nice, but I guess that would be a hard sell...

a slightly more realistic cost event might shake things up...a lot of those spaceframes aren't really production friendly...and most of the monocoques are definitely not something you would sell for $25k...

As for taking points off the endurance event, I'd be all for it...so much of this competition is based on your drivers at the moment and it would be nice to see that emphasis shift onto the cars...maybe take the endurance down to 100 and put the real points on accel and skid pad or maybe something like the Road & Track challenge...

None of it will happen though...

-Travis Garrison
U of Wash FSAE

[Z]

The best new rule that could be added is "There are NO RULES!" http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Well, what I mean is that I think the current rules are overly restrictive.

Why retrict the engine to 610cc when the 20mm intake orifice (ie. "restrictor") makes an 8 litre big block V8 a pretty silly option. It would be difficult to get any more than the standard 80hp out of it, and the weight! Two-strokes, rotaries, diesels, gas-turbines... should all be allowed. (BTW, who has seen the latest Race Engine Technology mag. with the Schrick Hurricane 600cc diesel V-twin?).

The aero restrictions are ridiculous. 3mm radii on rear edges of wings "for safety", but any sharpness on hard, heavy mechanical components. I'd rather be hit with a sharp edged foam core wing, than with a blunt engine block...

Likewise, the suspension rule mandating 2" of suspension travel. Especially when many teams use springs so stiff that there is negligible movement, and the scrutineers still pass them. I suggest this rule be eliminated, and instead the tracks be made even more bumpy than the US one. The teams then make their choice; either lightweight no-suspension go-cart, or heavier, more expensive car with good suspension. If the go-carts keep winning, then the organisers build a bumpier track. Let the terrain dictate the best solution, not some artificial rules.

Regarding taking points from Endurance and giving them to Design; No way! Design is already too subjective. Even having some sort of objective formulae for extra Design points is a bit too academic (IMHO). (Although I think it would be a good idea to apply some objective "metrics" to the current Design points.) The dynamic events are the ultimate test of whether the team does a good job of designing their car. The static events allow for some "teaching" elements to be included. I think the current points mix is very good.

Just in case I haven't upset everyone yet http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. I agree with one of Paul Van Valkenburgh's suggestions for an extra event. He proposed that the final event of the competition should be a full-on crash test! That way nobody can come back with last year's car, and they learn a little about building safe cars. All that hard work!? The blood, the sweat, the tears!!?? The loving attention to detail!!!??? How about it, guys? http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Z

[adrial]

Haha a crash test ... you almost had a non controversial post there going Z...

So much for summer testing eh...

BTW the rule is for 3" of suspension travel IIRC.

[Jarrod]

I would hate to see the points go more towards design event rather than enduro, as, if your car is well designed and engineered to the rules and specs, and you are well prepared, you will do well in dynamic competitions. The driver is another variable, but i don't think it is that big of a deal, we have done well with just a bit of training, and totally inexperienced drivers.

Diesels and rotaries would be a great addition, and in the context of automotive design it would be useful educationally.

As far as oval tracks, there is nice outdoor bike velodrome not far from our uni, I have thought about it a number of times, need some better side impact rules maybe.

If the aero rules were freed up a little (no massive edge radii, let the front wing out a little further) that would make life a bit easier (at least for us) but there is a learning experience in making the wings work with the blunt trailing edges.

[Denny Trimble]

My biggest problem with the endurance event is that you only get one chance at it. Up through '98 (and still in Australia) teams got two chances. That way, if you have a freak mechanical failure or if you drip two drops of oil on the ground in the driver change, your entire year of work isn't hosed.

Sure, teams that prepare more thoroughly are more likely to finish endurance on the first run. But, there's too much blood, sweat, and tears from each team, working all year long, to be taken out by a small problem and have no chance to fix it and try again.

[Travis Garrison]

My major complaint, like I said before is the emphasis placed on driver skill. It seems like events more like the road and track event, while still somewhat dependent on the driver would show more of what the cars can do and less of what your driver can do.

Of course this comes from one *%$#ty driver http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

-Travis Garrison
UW FSAE

[mtg]

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

The aero restrictions are ridiculous. 3mm radii on rear edges of wings "for safety", but any sharpness on hard, heavy mechanical components. I'd rather be hit with a sharp edged foam core wing, than with a blunt engine block...

Likewise, the suspension rule mandating 2" of suspension travel. Especially when many teams use springs so stiff that there is negligible movement, and the scrutineers still pass them. I suggest this rule be eliminated, and instead the tracks be made even more bumpy than the US one. The teams then make their choice; either lightweight no-suspension go-cart, or heavier, more expensive car with good suspension. If the go-carts keep winning, then the organisers build a bumpier track. Let the terrain dictate the best solution, not some artificial rules.

Z </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would be interesting to see the suspension travel rule gone to see how things turned out. Some teams run spools now; with no susp. travel rule, maybe some teams would run Formula 500 style suspsension: "that bushing deflects, a little".

[Travis Garrison]

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

BTW the rule is for 3" of suspension travel IIRC. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pg 17 of the rules, its 2"

edit: oops sorry there Jarrod, I thought you were saying diesels wouldn't be a good addition...didn't mean to be an ass...just came out that way http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

In any case the point was I, like you apprently, think it would be fun to have diesels and rotaries to contend with...diesels especialy.

-Travis Garrison
UW FSAE

[Eddie Martin]

This is a tricky subject. Personally i think the rules and points are very good at the moment with a good division between all the events.

Adding another event, like an Oval Track, would be really cool but I think logistically it would be a nightmare and push the majority of teams past their limits in terms of manpower and time.

I think the split between Enduro/Design is good. Pushing the points more in favour of design may cause problems. The design event, in Australia, has been very "interesting"� to say the least in recent years and if it counted for more points it could upset a lot of teams. Hopefully these problems will be cured at this years Oz comp.

I agree with Denny that having a one shot Enduro has a huge effect on your whole year. One tiny problem that has never shown up before can wreck a whole year. Maybe a system where a team gets to the driver change or beyond can get some consolation points. Maybe 2 points for each km they compete but then you will run into the problem of teams that finish the enduro but are slow getting no points etc.

I thought Cornell were running multi-point bell cranks in 2003? (Maybe wrong on this).

Diesels and stuff just make it more complicated for the organizers to run the event and to bring some kind of equality between the different systems plus i think they would like to see people doing more powertrain development before any rule changes.

The 8 inch wheels, 4 strokes, working suspension obviously stop us building a gokart. Any change here would lead to most teams building a go kart and I think the rules committee wants to see us designing these systems so when we get into the auto industry, for example, we are familiar with these types of set ups.
It would be interesting to allow half capacity two strokes (eg. 305 cc and below) but 2 strokes are starting to get fazed out of racing anyway. I like the idea of having no engine capacity limit and still using the 20 mm restrictor but I think you'd have a hard time explaining to the powers that be at a uni / oh&s people that the capacity limit is less important than the restrictor, plus having people run a 1000cc or 1300cc bike motor and then taking the restrictor off after the competition could cause a lot of problems.

The way the aero and forced induction rules are set up is so that you can't get too big of an advantage with them. If there were less restrictions on these items all teams would be forced to run aero and forced induction hence it would make things way more complicated for teams and lead to a haves and have nots situation.

There is huge emphasis on driver skill but I think most teams would have one or two good drivers with training I can't see more than a 2.5 second a lap difference between a very good driver and an average driver, or 55 seconds over an enduro which is roughly 50 points not a huge amount if you have a good team and do well in all the other events.

I liked the way the cost report has become more streamlined over the years. I think that can continue a bit. Otherwise I think the competition will stay as it is because it is really good at the moment. You can start from nothing and finish in the top three overall and be in the design finals in a year or two.

[Kevin Hayward]

I am surprised nobody has mentioned the Autocross event. Looking at the points it is the event where one star driver can really make a significant gap in points. For all the points given in the endurance event the actual difference in points does not usually end up being too much of a problem. Average drivers have some time to get up to speed and come closer to the best in the competition.

Given the professionalism shown by a lot of teams I think it would be great to be able to do a few practice runs on the Autocross track. I don't know when this could happen. However it would show how well teams can adapt to a situation rather than whether they guessed a good setup, or test in similar conditions at home. It would put less of a gap between good and not so good drivers and also show judges whether the teams can test the way they claim.

It would be nice to see the cost event shaken up a bit to remove the problem of creative accounting. Even more of a focus on manufacturing viability and cost report quality (rather than lower number).

Technically I think there are a couple of things that can be done to reduce costs to the teams, or reduce the effects of having more money. My favourite idea is to introduce a control tyre. In order to do well teams would still have to test with the tyres and learn about them ... so I don't think any real learning opportunity is lost. A control tyre would eliminate the need for significant back to back tyre testing. Control of the compound could help tyres last longer during testing and hopefully encourage more testing. Tyre testing is an extra pain in the butt for Oz teams as availability and cost of those black donuts down here is not so good.

I wouldn't be too upset with diffs being set as open or locked either. I think open would be better given that it is closer to the Auto industry norms.

Safety wise I think it would be nice to see feet behind the axle line of the front wheels. This would also help the implementation of an open differential it will force the CoG rearwards for most cars.

I know that a lot of people hate these sorts of ideas because it conflicts with the work they have done or threatens to take away their toys. My old team has done tyre tests on different tyres, significant development with the Torsen diff, and has the drivers feet ahead of the front axle line. They would lose out as with a lot of teams. However I think that suggestions which increase safety and/or decrease costs to the teams without being overly restrictive are in the best interests of the competition.

I would also be bheind opening up some rules like the engine rule. The control over the restrictor is enough to limit performance. I would think that it is in the best interests of the Auto industry to allow investigation of different engine technologies. However even with the current rules changing the balance of fuel economy scores would shake things up considerably.

An a last note for Eddie. I agree that something is fishy with the design event results in Oz. This is not a compliant based on the performance of our team. We finished second (and 3rd overall) and did not end up losing many points to the winner. However RMIT finished 6th design, Woolongong 8th (out of 22 teams). These were the teams that finished 1 and 2 with extremely well designed and built cars. If the spread of cars was considered consistent with the US that is the equivalent of finishing 38th and 51st. To add to the problems the score was not set so that the top team did not get the maximum 150. Adelaide, the design winner, only recieved 136 points. So while the judges are prepared to give them number one spot in design they are not prepared to give them the points benefit the rules allow. This made the design an almost worthless event in trying to add to your lead in Oz. This was quite apparent given the small amount of time devoted to the design process. In a field of only 22 cars each car was seen officially for only 40 minutes. In the US the top 5 teams last year were in the design judging process for 3 rounds with time in the order of 6 hours. How can you accurately place teams on their design while only looking at teams for such a short time? For what is an engineering design competition I find this treatment of the design event disgusting.

It would be nice to see some extra, non-points awards for the quality of the cars. For example best wiring prizes, outstanding machning awards etc. Formula Student has the most desirable car award or something like it. Great idea. There are some real workshop heroes in some of these teams and it would be nice to see that side of the project recieve a little recognition.

Anyway this post is getting far too long. Damn you Denny and your interesting thread.

Kev

[Frank "Ruska" Roeske]

Denny, why you start these thread. Now i have to answer:

First off all, in preparation for next years German Event in August a team from 10 FSAE Alumni Racers from different European Teams have discusing about the Rules nearly 3 Month.

We discuss nearly every point in the rules.

After these 3 Month we came to the point, that the rules are very good for the point of preparing students for automotive industry.

the rules are your product specification, which is the base for each development in automotive industry. and you have to design a car which fulfilled these requirments.

For example if BMW start the design of a new 3 series, the product specification will not say bring me as much as HP in these car, they will say bring me as much power from a 6 cylinder 3.0 liter engine, which only needs 8 Liters/100km for example. The FSAE rules do exactly the same to the teams.

Of course it would be interesting to see a diesel engine or an hybrid, and maybe the day will come when FSAE goes to hybrid engines.

But coming to design event. I think for judges it is hard enough to be objective to the cars which build from these rules. So if you have an wider range of engines, which are allowed. it will even getting harder to say which concept is the best one. you lose the comparability and teams with an inovative concept like aachen last year, even feel not objective judged for their concept.

And the rules even have enough room for new things. For example the aachen car from last year. A 600cc 3 cylinderengine with selfmade CVT. Any of you saw these before? Or the Guelph 4 WD system, Texas AM Aeropackage. All these things were new and in still with the rules.

And sorry for these Denny: Which student has the change to be part of FSAE teams for more then 3 years. If you are an Freshmann everything is new for you. it is an challange to build your first car, in the next year even to be better. But if you start with an 4 stroke or 2 stroke engine, it dosn´t even make an difference, form the point of the idea of these event.

But i like the Idea to have an combination between acceleration and braking. Accelerate as fast as you can and then make full brake. It will be more complicate to measure the time, but it is possible. Maybe we should send these idea to the rules commitee.

Thes post is getting to long and i even can write more about these topic. Lets see what other people think.

Frank Roeske
Formula Student Germany

[ben]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kevin Hayward:
My favourite idea is to introduce a control tyre. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One of our car analysts did say that we'd probably get more interested in FSAE if it was a control tyre formula. I tend to agree from a technical standpoint because then you'd see who'd optimised their car best for the tyres rater than who had the most budget to buy the most Avon A45s, etc :-)

Ben

[Neil S]

I like the idea of a second chance at endurance, but maybe they could do that with a small points deduction or something.

As far as aero, it would be much more effective without the radius edge rules and the location rules. Also, the safety steward should not be allowed to make you change some part of your car because of his own opinion, especially when it meets all requirements of the rules. In any other racing series they would have to let the teams run until the rules were changed prohibitting whatever item was in question.

[Test Driver]

Hello,

1. Allow work on car between driver changeover but shorten the allowable (not timed) changeover time to something ridiculously short like 1 or 2 minutes. This affords second chances for good designs (including driver ingress/egress) with freak breakdowns but still penalizes bad design and execution.

2. Claimer rule based on cost report! A boom for new teams and a deterrent to over-design of what are supposed to be AX toys.

3. MORE points for fuel economy!

Ramon

[Mike Cook]

I will add my two cents.

A braking test would be nice, although a lot harder to time. I'm thinking maybe they could time the acceleration run and then measure the braking distance. There would need to be some interesting math to weigh the two though, since a slower acceleration run would lead to a better braking distance and vice versa. I'm thinking along the lines of a ratio: if you do the acceleration run in x seconds, you must brake in y feet. So if you have a faster acceleration run you have more distance to stop in and still score the braking points.

Another thing that bothers me is the skidpad event. I don't feel like most teams are even close to being up to temperature during this event. Everything we design on these cars are designed around the tire. If we have to do an event on cold tires I feel that we're not seeing the full ability of the car. Now some may say that this is part of the competition and you need to make the best compromise. Fine, but I think this may hurt the full autocross ability of these cars (by possibly running smaller tires, or whatever) and really autocrossing is the true purpose of these cars. So I would like to see a skidpad event that lets you make more laps around each of the circles. This would allow you to get your tires up to temperature, and make the results more independent of the driver (we have enough events focused on driving ability anyways..)

I also think it would be more interesting not necessarily to change the rules but make the teams change. For instance, you can only run the same engine for 2-3 years and then you have to change to another manufacture's engine. (i.e. switch from honda to yamaha) or you can only use the same brand tires for 2-3 years (i.e hoosier 25a switch to goodyears). This would put more focus on exploring and learning new things for students as opposed to relying on all the past information your team has accumulated. Hell I would like to try new things with my team but it really isn't a good idea if you want to win. You stick with the same stuff and keep refining and making it better. That is all.

[Mike Cook]

On yeah, I also agree with Denny, a real pitstop would be nice during the endurance. I think, lets say something malfunctions on the car or whatever- how well do the people in your pits know your car, and know how to fix it. Then instead of making the pit non-timeable Just make it non timed for the first minute, then the more time you spend the more you hurt your overall time.

[Agent4573]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I also think it would be more interesting not necessarily to change the rules but make the teams change. For instance, you can only run the same engine for 2-3 years and then you have to change to another manufacture's engine. (i.e. switch from honda to yamaha) or you can only use the same brand tires for 2-3 years (i.e hoosier 25a switch to goodyears). This would put more focus on exploring and learning new things for students as opposed to relying on all the past information your team has accumulated. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not to sound harsh, but I do believe that is one of the worst idea's I've ever heard. Over summer testing this year, we snapped a chain and lost an engine because of it. Earlier in the year one of our older engines decided to blow itself up in testing. This left us with one engine for this year to test and tune with. We don't have the money right now to go out and buy engines that we need, if the rules stated you could only use an engine for two years and then had to change it, we probably couldn't afford to compete anymore. I see your point of keeping things changing, but part of engineering is becoming the expert in your field. In the four years your in college, you should be able to look at your car, see what needs to be fixed and make the next generation part for it. You shouldn't be forced to start with a new platform every 2 years because certain teams dominate with similar designs year after year. Just work on making a better design than them.

[Mike Cook]

I'm not trying to force change to even out the playing field. I suspect that even if teams were forced to change you would still see the same top teams winning. My point was more that I feel that there are probably a lot of people involed in this competition that would like to try new things with their cars. But that's something very difficult to do because in general you are left with the previous years car designs and your job is to build upon that. Any radical change would most likely make your team finish worse overall. So it isn't going to happen. This rule would give these students an oppurtunity to do these new things without putting them at a severe disadvantage. I don't expect everyone to agree with this as it probably has to do with your own feelings of designing form scratch vs. designing a cup holder.

[VFR750R]

If you have an idea to make something better, and it's proven to be better, something tells me it won't be too long before it makes it on the car. Changing tire brands or engine brands because you've already done it before is ridiculous. If you can't make something better, make something else better. Change for the sake of change is not engineering either.

You say, you 'feel there is probably a lot of people involved in the competition that would like to try new things with their cars' duh. Everyone wants to try new things, but how can you make rules requiring it. I got it.

Rule 2006: Each team is required to design a car that is better then the year before, no second year cars allowed.

[Kevin Hayward]

Paul,

Still at Uni .. sort of. Pretty much working from home on my dissertion. Probably heading to the States within a couple of months.

...

Last years change to the DAQ rules allowing uncosted systems to be attached during the event was a significant one. It is excellent in encouraging teams to do more work with their cars. However it will also encourage increased spending.

I think the rule was a good one but think that there is scope to change things to reduce spending requirements. Forcing teams to change systems regularly may be interesting but it would probably have a negative effect on the required budget of teams.

There is definitely scope to make these cars cheaper and safer as well as improving the finishing rate of cars. I doubt any rule changes outside of these parameters is in the best interests of the competition or the teams involved.

I wonder if there is scope for a student voice amongst the rule-makers. There are quite a few experienced (and non-experienced) FSAE students around with a lot of good ideas for the competition. I don't know how something like that could be achieved, or wether the committee would respect the views of a student. The tire testing consortium is a pretty good indication that the possibility of organising this sort of thing may exist.

Any thoughts?

Kev

[Buckingham]

I prefer the rules the way they are. The two most important things an engineer will ever have to be concerned with are cost and safety, and the current rules do a great job at both.

I think that there should be a spec fuel. A 94 octane fuel spec would keep costs down, and level out the fuel economy event. Correction factors for different fuels (restrictor and economy event) will almost always give a slight advantage one way or the other.

The points are right the way they are. Putting more points towards design would give too much weight to a qualitative catagory.

However, I am in favor of a braking event. I think the brake event should be a start at this line, and stop in this box in as short of a time as possible. Go past the box and get zero points. This type of brake event is the easiest to measure, and with the most certainty since your score would simply be based off of trap time.

As far as the oval track idea goes, we already have a circle track (skidpad), and the reason they don't run that any faster is because of safety.

[Denny Trimble]

The point of the oval track would be to put a directional setup on the car.

I'm not a fan of oval racing, but it would certainly be interesting.

I don't see why getting up to speeds seen in the other events would be a safety risk. I'm not talking about a large oval; just something to get up to 60mph at the end of the straights.

[Rob.C]

i think that the design as it is, is way too subjective, forgive me as we feel as though we were cheaded somewhat by some of the judges at student, and all the cars that were in our design group scored badly, including drexel who were top 15 in the US but only 37th at student!??

anyways, some of the rules do now seem to be a little silly and maybe the wing rules should be relaxed a little, although monash are helped by the largest wind tunnel in the southern hemisphere! (very impressive to stand in!) i personally like the 2 enduro runs like the aus comp, we failled to finish enduro at student because our chain snapped! we have not finished enduro in 6 years and the last two years have been painfull, steering wheel coming loose and falling off in 04 and a chain snapping in 05 (when we had run 5 enduro runs on the same chain in testing and never had a problem)

i would like to see a few more teams making their own engine, i know one of the aus teams does this, but i gues it costs a lot and is extremely difficult, maybe rules dictating that the drivers feet must be behind the centre line of the front wheels, as in most formulae? i am not entirely sure, but i feel that something should be done!

i would also like to see the scrutineering being done taking into account all drivers size, for example using just the tallest driver for the egress seems silly, surely all drivers should be able to get out in &lt; 5 sec!?? and some of the things being pulled up at student were silly, we were told to put beer cans over our shock springs incase they exploded!?? what the hell is a beer can gonna do to stop that!?? and who has ever seen a shock spring explode!???

ok minor rant over! sorry to bore you all, but i felt i should say something!

[CAV]

what about

1) Having a real endurance event, maybe 1 or 2 hours worth, if the judges see a drop of oil or something goes wrong then you have a chance to fix it. To save time, we can axe the presentation event.

2) If you don't like the skidpad being on cold tires, how about tire warmers! Heh, every team would have a generator running...

3) Oval event where you don't know which way you are going until the day of

4) How about a new event, Moto SAE? Student design, build, and race their own motorcycles...for the weekend roadracer or super-motard racer, I'm not sure which would be better.

[Greg H]

If you are interested in saving cost and mixing things up, put in a minimum weight of 500 lbs. Hopefully you can put a 500 lb car together for $8500, the original cost report maximum. That would add an interesting spin on car design too. But then, are we just going to make the same cars with lead plates on the bottom? Are we going to spend more on engine development to get that extra edge over the competition?

[Buckingham]

Denny,

The safety issue with an oval is that out of at least 100 cars attempting the oval, you have to assume that at least one of them will have zero brakes, no steering, or just loose control due to either mechanical failure or driver error and want to go dead straight ahead at any point in time. Assuming we are discussing a flat oval, there will be a tremendous amount of runoff needed to ensure the safety of the driver and any corner workers.

In addition, very few schools have the spacial resources to lay out and test on a flat 60 mph turn-in oval, especially to do it safely.

[Denny Trimble]

I agree with what you say Donavan, but not many teams have the space to set up a full sized autocross or endurance course, either. That doesn't stop those events from being held. And I don't think an oval event would be any more risky than the autocross or endurance events - it could have corners and straights within the same dimensions as the rules for those events.

A 60mph top speed oval wouldn't need to be very large. We set one up for new driver training last weekend, it was 250 feet long and 60 feet wide. We were reaching the top of 2nd (60mph) and then back down to 35ish in the corners. I think it would take up less room than the acceleration event.

There's obviously not time to add an oval event to the current schedule, which is another issue.

[B Hise]

I would like to see the rules explicitly define the common problems that the scruitineers always point out. For example, 2 threads showing on all "critical" suspension connections. Define critical... I dont want anything falling off and we make sure that doesnt happen. Some teams have to retech the next day which screws up their whole competition mindset because of something that wasnt defined.

Granted you should know about the 2 thread policy, but theres alot of new and inexperienced people out there. I feel that they shouldnt be punished for that in tech.

It also startles me that you must retech for smaller issues when teams with improperly loaded and sized rod ends (leading to parts flying off) are allowed to compete. Its too subjective.

Anyhow, staying in line with the post... I think the rules are fine the way they are points wise. A spec tire would be interesting but it puts a damper on the spirit of the competition. The only thing I would change is the fact that you cant work on your car in the enduro. Give a 3 minute driver change window, then add on the rest to your final time with some maximum, say 15 minutes of repair.

Back to work

Bryan

[Z]

Regarding a "Braking Event":

The Skid Pad tests lateral acceleration both ways - left and right. I suggest that Acceleration be renamed "Longitudinal Acceleration" and tested both ways, forwards and backwards (with Skid Pad = "Lateral Acceleration").

The course would be two cones about 120 metres apart. Cars would start next to one cone, accelerate hard towards the second cone, brake hard, do a hairpin turn around the second cone, then accelerate back to the first cone, brake, and corner. This would be one lap. The cornering should be done in opposite directions (left and right for a figure 8) to discourage weight biasing. Cones down each side would prevent the cars from "opening out" the hairpins, so hairpin speed would be very slow.

If the organisers only want to test for a single "panic stop", then only do one lap. If testing for brake fade, then do 10 laps. Lowest ET scores highest points. I doubt many current cars' brakes would be unaffected after 10 laps. In fact, long run-off zones would be handy...

Z

[Kamil S]

Oval tracks, and perhaps more dynamic events, may lead to teams wanting to design cars with a lot of modular assembly. I'm not an expert on this but I believe you need to "shift" away the car's mass center (or CG for that matter) when racing on an oval track. Again, no clue as to how or whether this is correct (excuse me for not looking into this beforehand).
I would like to see how we as engineers can design cars that are able to adapt to different dynamic events. It could be as simple as minor engine/suspension tuning to as complicated as throwing in a different engine for the sake of different events. Ouch...
For all that matters, it could be a horrible thing to do as well =)

[kozak]

but i think what the judges need to consider when coming up with these great ideas is making sure that all teams can compete equally, like modular designing with different motors would be killer for a smaller school, basically whoever had the most money would win.

[Daves]

These are probably more like complaints than innovative thinking, but:

1. Get rid of the 4 minute endurance penalty for poor fuel economy.

2. Guarantee at least some endurance points for finishing endurance.

2. Make the cost report more realistic. Titanium cars with turbochargers don't really cost $14,000 to prototype.

[Eddie Martin]

Well i think we will only see rule changes when the rules committee can see a real need to shake things up. If you suddenly see 20 or 20 teams getting over 800 points or the vast majority of teams have very sophisticated/advanced powertrains will they change rules in these areas.

Kev,
You do bring up a good point about the Autox, I have noticed you guys have suffered a bit in the points because of this scoring system. When a team like Texas A&M is so quick it hurts other teams scores a lot, not to downgrade their efforts it must have been an awesome lap.
Some solutions to this may be going from 150 points to 125 points and then making skid pan and acceleration both 75 points.
Or you could change the scoring of the Autox slightly and make it the same as the Enduro in that the score is using Tmin and 133% of Tmin (Tmax) rather than 125% of Tmin to get Tmax as is used in Autox. In other words the fast cars will still win but the slower cars won't lose as many points. An example of this is the University of Cincinnati who finished 10th in the 2005 Autox with a 59.579 seconds compared to A&M's 55.843 seconds. They received 105.332 points out of 150. Using the Tmax formula from Enduro they would have received 113.9 points. Not a huge difference but it would help the teams that don't have as talented a driving squad.

My comments about the design event were based on some off the record discussions I'd had with some of the design judges I know and how they felt things had gone. The fact that the judges only got 30 minutes with each car and then the final order and points was decided with out any cars having turned a wheel were my main points. A design final of some description would make the a huge step forward and also getting a chief judge like Jay O'Connell (spelling) to supervise and guide the process would also be a big advance.
Just because a car is fast or "looks good"� doesn't mean it is well designed or understood. I'm sure you could get a poorly designed and understood car to go very very fast.

[ben]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Eddie Martin:
Just because a car is fast or "looks good"� doesn't mean it is well designed or understood. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately the design judging at FStudent didn't seem to accept this point in some important cases.

Ben

[Rob.C]

maybe a sensible rule change would be to specify a maximum turning circle? this year at student, but even more so last year, there were teams who were finding it very dificult, if not near impossible to get around one or two of the corners on the enduro track.

[Frank "Ruska" Roeske]

5.6.3 Autocross Course Specifications & Speeds

...
Hairpin Turns : Minimum of 9 m (29.5 feet) outside diameter (of the turn)


So why have a rule for maximum turning cicle. Just fellow the existing rules and you will not have any problem on the track. You need a car which can drive these corner = 8.9m maximum turning circle. Thats the way we build cars and never had any problems in the hairpine.

I allready saw these problems starting in 2002 when FS was @ Bruntigthorp the first time. And the track didn´t really change. And we see each year cars which can´t make the hairpine.


Like Michael Royce say it every year: "Just read the rules."

[Chris Boyden]

A braking performance test would be cool.
Braking is a huge part of the overall performance of the car. We test lateral and forward acceleration, why not braking. Z has a a good idea. Testing overall longitudinal accel would be more thorough than testing stopping distance from 60 mph and much easier to implement.

[markocosic]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Z:
Regarding a "Braking Event":
&lt;snip&gt;
Z </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds good!

Re: covering springs/dampers
I can only assume they're worried about shrapnel and the driver? IMO a full-face helmet with visor down should be more than sufficient. Besides - they have far bigger health and safety issues at the event to address, this being a classic example...

http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/mac65/misc/formula%20student/PICT4023.JPG

(for those on slow connections, its an angle grinder with the handle removed, resting upside-down on a trestle with the power switch latched on and a guy "tweaking" a bracket on it whilst wearing absolutely no safety gear whatsoever - a finger/eye removal candidate if ever I saw one, and far more of a concern than a car falling to pieces on the track...)

[TG]

If I have time tonight, I'll sit down and go through this thread looking at the acceleration/braking event ideas and create a new thread specifically for it. It definately sounds like a good idea and seems many are interested in such a thing. If anybody beats me to the punch, so be it. More time for others to input on it.

[kozak]

Marko, if you are refering to the rule about shielding the shocks from the driver. it is a good idea even though it is a pain in the ass. from what i've seen on most cars the front shocks are usually located very close to the drivers legs if one of these shocks were to explode or break loose it would literally take your leg off. i have seen coilovers explode before or break free from their mounts (not in Fsae) and it is awesome to see what all that stored energy can do.

[Denny Trimble]

Well, there's a difference between covering the shocks to protect the driver from "explosion", as apparently the FS tech inspectors required, and covering the shocks to prevent the driver's body or clothes from becoming entangled with the moving parts (as will probably be in the rules for next year).

If the goal is really to protect the driver from spring shrapnel, there should be a a rule on energy absorption. I can see a lot of teams otherwise making covers of 1-2 layers of carbon, or vacuum formed lexan, and attaching them with velcro. It's like the crush zone rule - no specs on how much energy it has to absorb (yet).

I've never seen a spring break in FSAE or in mountain biking, where much heavier springs (600lb/in on my bike) are used.

[kozak]

ok i misunderstood

[markocosic]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by kozak:
&lt;snip&gt;
I have seen coilovers explode before or break free from their mounts (not in Fsae) and it is awesome to see what all that stored energy can do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've seen some fairly spectacular failures on comp-safari machinery myself and would agree with you. However: if you are going to mandate covered shocks then you've got to enforce it properly - asking people to put up lexan screens or cover the coilovers with beercans is a complete joke/farce/pain in the bum and does absolutely nothing for safety.

Drivers getting bits caught in the suspension mounted outside the vehicle at more than arm's reach - really a concern?

Could be just an insurance thing I guess - we need to make sure all cars have a "fronal impact attenuator" and the driver can't be hit by "exploding coilovers" before the insurers cover us?

[D J Yates]

I think the need for covering the shocks is to provide a shield from damper fluid rather than exploding springs. I don't know how hot the fluid gets but i imagine it would be enough to burn should you get sprayed by an exploding damper. At a seminar given by the head judges and scrutineer earlier this year, they seemed keen on shielding the driver (and anyone who is standing near by) from any pressurised fluid. It may sound pedantic but with 100+ years combined expereince i expect that if it is physically possible, then the scrutineers have seen it happen - however unlikey.

[markocosic]

Damper bodies get hot enough to burn you very nicely - hot oil would definitely hurt.

Driver would be fine in a full-faec helmet/overalls/gloves, but can appreciate the pit crews and marshals are at risk.

So beer-cans and plastic-bags with attitude in - but what was with asking DUT to stick on the polycarb ears (pretty useless as far as pit crews are concerned) and not asking the outboard/below ground shocks to be covered I wonder?

[Jreyenga]

I'm a BIG fan of a minimum weight. I think 500-550lbs dry would allow for more reliable cars and more technical innovation on the driving systems rather than FEA till it fails on the last lap or you hit a big bump. (maybe even a weight with driver... but I just say that because I'm fat)

Also, I'd like to see the autocross be a "real" autocross like the ones at Topeka. Also, with more laps per car for the autocross (at least 3).

I know it's a "design" competition, but I'm all for pushing as much of the points towards the actual dynamic results. I guess I just like the idea of driving the fastest race car more than building the fastest race car.

I also like the idea of spec tires. And, the subjectiveness of the design competition is annoying. You can argue all you want whether or not the design path you chose was good or not, but you can't argue who had a faster lap time... this is racing, not figure skating.

[Sam Zimmerman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jreyenga:
You can argue all you want whether or not the design path you chose was good or not, but you can't argue who had a faster lap time... this is racing, not figure skating. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, this is (or should be) an engineering design competition more than it is a race. Unfortunately, many people seem to forget that. Faster lap times does not mean that you did better engineering or that you even leared anything (which should be the ultimate goal.) Without the design competition, the judges would not have any way to know how much you know about engineering, your discipline, or your car.

You can argue all you want about whether your fast lap time was due to the driver or the car, but with the right questions there is usually little argument whether or not you understand your car.

[Jreyenga]

Schools could (and would) more aggresively seek out driving talent. Which would make the racing more consistent and indicative of the capability of the cars. Maybe allow non-student but non-proffesional drivers?

Schumacher is a fine driver, but he isn't as much better than all other F1 drivers as his record may indicate.... Ferrari has (had) a damn fine engineering team. His car was often faster.

F1 is an engineering competition. Nascar is an engineering competition. If it were clear what designs are better then all F1 cars would be the same (and they know more than the judges that judge us)

I don't mean to be as abrasive as I may sound above, and it's probably the die hard competitive nature I have that wants to make it more of a race. I know this will never happen, but that's my opinion.

I still stand by a minimum weight and spec tire though.

[Kamil S]

Do you guys think a standard engine for all teams is a good idea? I personally think it is; I guess it would let people design around the engine and not worry about what engine works, etc...
Also gives a good engineering measure of what teams got most HP with a specific engine and all those restrictions.

[James Waltman]

I absolutely hate the idea of a minimum weight. It would do nothing to even out the playing field. If there was a minimum weight requirement the goal would still be to make the car as light as possible. Then add ballast.

The notion that these cars break because they are pushing the edge to save weight is way off base. These cars are prototypes built by students who are learning about engineering and manufacturing. I think that makes them inherently unreliable. Many failures come from mistakes in manufacturing, assembly, or maintenance. Those failures have nothing to do with design or weight.

Weight has nothing to do with reliability in Formula SAE. Here is my proof:
This year in Detroit we recorded the weights of 48 cars during the official weigh in. Certainly not a complete sample but pretty good. Out of that sample 27 cars did not finish the endurance (DNF/DNS/DQ). 21 cars completed the endurance.
Average weight for all 48 cars sampled: 512.60 pounds
Average weight for the 27 DNF cars: 511.70 pounds
Average weight for the 21 finishing cars: 513.76 pounds
Two pounds difference is well within the sampling error.
Here is my data. (http://dot.etec.wwu.edu/fsae/HostedPics/2005_Detroit_Unofficial/weight%20vs%20dnf%20enduro.xls)

So, I maintain that weight is unrelated to durability in Formula SAE. A minimum weight won't make the cars more reliable and won't encourage innovation.

I think that any rule change that restricts the cars more or forces them to be more similar would be a real shame.

[Denny Trimble]

And you didn't even have Penn State on that list, 369lbs or something like that, 4cylinder, and they finished endurance high in the ranks.

I agree that if there were a minimum weight, teams would be running ballast plates on the bottom of the frame, fighting for sub-8" CG heights, and telling the judges how much their car weighed without ballast.

In the semi's this year, Paul VanValkenburg came to our area, looked around, found our nosecond under a table and wrote down the weight on the piece of tape, then took off. How's that for subjective? http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif He asked more questions later, but it always came down to "show me the data".

Spec tires? Spec Engines? Minimum Weights? This is getting scary...

[Kamil S]

My idea for a spec engine only relates to real racing competitions. Not necessarily a certain make, but say if they said it is required to have a 600cc 4 cylinder inline.
This coming from someone who is starting design/competition for 2006, so really I wouldn't know how hard the "reality" counterpart would be.

[EliseS2]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kamil S:
My idea for a spec engine only relates to real racing competitions. Not necessarily a certain make, but say if they said it is required to have a 600cc 4 cylinder inline.
This coming from someone who is starting design/competition for 2006, so really I wouldn't know how hard the "reality" counterpart would be. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you want a spec engine, go do mini-baja. One of the great things about formula is the engine freedom. Everything from turbo singles, supercharged 4/600, and purpose built v8s. Taking away this factor severly limits what many people find a great joy for this competition. The lessons you learn from choosing an engine are what is valueable about this competition. Formula is meant to train young engineers for motorsports, engine selection is involved in some forms. Same thing with a spec tire. I still think with a spec tire you would still learn a great deal about tires, but you miss some aspects. If you are given two tires which ones do you choose, the compromises that are involved are important and a great learning experience.

I do not think that limiting the design of these vehicles would make it better. I beleive that the rules are great at teaching proper vehicle engineering and allowing innovation. I believe that some clarifications like front impact energy absorbtion would help and add new areas of innovation while not adding great cost or hurting smaller teams. I think the best idea is to change the events and force some of the more experienced teams to solve new problems.

[Buckingham]

I hope they include (and enforce) a minimum weight requirement for the impact attenuators. Students should not have to make the decision of weight vs. safety. If every team was required to have 3 lbs of impact attenuator up front AND an energy absorption requirement, it would allow us to design for safety, not try and see how light of a crushzone we can get away with that still meets the FEA predicted energy requirements.

It might also allow teams with low resources to produce safe designs without a lot of investment. For example, if the minimum weight allowed common foams (or other uniform density materials with a known energy absorption/unit mass) to meet the requirements from a mass-basis. The mass of a removable impact attenuator would be very easy to inspect.

Yes, that might mean that the impact attenuator no longer because a design item, but there is a reason that students don't design their own helmets.

[TG]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dhaidinger:
I hope they include (and enforce) a minimum weight requirement for the impact attenuators. Students should not have to make the decision of weight vs. safety. If every team was required to have 3 lbs of impact attenuator up front AND an energy absorption requirement, it would allow us to design for safety, not try and see how light of a crushzone we can get away with that still meets the FEA predicted energy requirements.

It might also allow teams with low resources to produce safe designs without a lot of investment. For example, if the minimum weight allowed common foams (or other uniform density materials with a known energy absorption/unit mass) to meet the requirements from a mass-basis. The mass of a removable impact attenuator would be very easy to inspect.

Yes, that might mean that the impact attenuator no longer because a design item, but there is a reason that students don't design their own helmets. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

...but teams with impact attenuators would just add ballast to it instead of reworking the entire thing. I think proving energy absorption, maybe with a required empirical test with certain outlines, should suffice.

Anyone up for designing a helmet up to Snell certification?

[Kamil S]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EliseS2:

The lessons you learn from choosing an engine are what is valueable about this competition. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I couldn't agree more with you. I was just mentioning spec engines for what "possibly" could go in the rules. From a totally different pt. of view you could also say that the engine selection is way too restrictive, and as listed earlier somewhere, teams should be allowed to use 2-strokes and rotaries and all that.

[Travis Garrison]

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

Faster lap times does not mean that you did better engineering or that you even leared anything

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would agree....this isn't supposed to be about the drivers, spec tires, spec engine, minimum weights...we aren't going for tight finishing times here, we're supposed to be learning out to engineer, and maybe even be creative...

I know for a fact that it doesn't take a great deal of resources to make a sub 500lb car, what does however take a good deal of resources, an understanding faculty and a strong team is driver development...if we were really interested in leveling the playing feild that would be a good place to start....

If you wanted to get extreme with spec this and spec that, how about spec drivers? After all most people by their cars based at least in part on one profesional review or another...hand your car over to the test driver, send him through a slolom, a skid pad, brake test, dyno pull and an accel run...and see how you stacked up...never happen but probably a better deal for the under funded teams than a min weight of 550 lbs...of course like I said in my other post; bear in mind I can't drive worth a ____ http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Regarding the min weight of the crush structure, if they actually spec out an energy absorbtion rating they will have done that relatively effectively. Besides it's not like thats a very expensive part to make.

A word of warning though...just becuase something passes a drop test does not make it a good crush structure...tooling and insulation foams in particular will give you some pretty poor performance...and the standard box structure from steel tubing seems to spike and fall on it's face. Aluminum honeycomb gives near ideal performance, and should be free if you talk to the right people. The point being that the "cheap" solutions aren't terribly safe...

[Kevin Hayward]

I think the spec idea has taken a bad run. I think it is unfair to label all ideas of specified components as being overly restrictive. I do not support spec rules as a way to level the playing field. I see no reason why the playing field needs to be leveled or the long running top teams need shaking up. There has only been one long-running team that has maintained a record of being right at the top of final standings for as long as they have been involved. At least as far as I can see. Apart from the red shadow the teams in the top group have changed over time.

As I stated before I think the only valid reasons (apart from my engineering fantasies) should be the increase in safety or the reduction of costs. I don't think it is a problem if teams enter and don't win. It is a problem if teams can no longer continue to enter due to increased costs. Or if teams enter and come away with injured team members.

I am still a big supporter of spec tyres. However the idea of spec engines and of minimum weights does not appeal to me, nor do I think they are practical.

The organisation of the event as it stands is not up to the constant weigh-ins required of a minimum weight rule. Judges would still look for a pre-ballast weight (and they should) and status quo would be pretty much maintained.

Spec engines is alos a big issue. Do you make the engine cheap and sacrifice power like min-Baja? Do you make it expensive and increase costs to teams that could have used a more available option? A spec engine would not go very far at all in leveling the playing field. Even the most die-hard engine fanatic cannot help but see that performance in this comp is much more dependent on chassis/suspension etc than it is on engine power. I actually fail to see any benefit of introducing a spec engine at all.

I think a spec tyre is a very different deal. I acknowledge that choosing the right tyre is a testing engineering problem. Also a very important one given the performance difference between the makes. However the importance of this decision makes the costs of making an informed decision very expensive. There has been some level of stability in the US given that Hoosier and Goodyear have produced tyres close in performance with good availability and pretty good durability.

There are worrying signs with more options starting to crop up with some pretty special rubber. This is exciting given the increased variety but does increase the number of options that may be tested.

We're also seeing some manufacturers giving more recently developed tyres to select teams while an older construction/compound to its other customers. At the moment if the top five finishers all run Hoosiers that are available at reasonable cost to all teams it is not too scary a result. However I don't think people would like seeing the top five finishers all running tyre XXXX when they are the only five teams that the tyre was made available to.

The higher the performance of the tyre the less durable it is likely to be. This means that teams with lots of money have an increased advantage during testing. Again teams that have more money should have an advantage, afterall they had to raise it just like everybody else. But there should be checks in place to ensure money does not become the primary basis for comp performance.

Sorry this post has become quite long already and I am only just warming up. I think that tyres could become a very big issue in this competition. Maybe the answer is not a spec tyre. Maybe a better answer would be an approved list of manufacturers. This could reduce the number of comparisons that can be made. The organisers could also institute a price ceiling for tyres as well as requiring any approved manufacturer to be able to supply a set number of teams.

Just some ideas.

Kev

[Buckingham]

To clarify my comment about impact attenuators. I meant to say that there should be BOTH an energy requirement with physical test and a minimum weight.

The goal of a safety device shouldn't be to make it as light as possible and barely meet the safety standard. The goal of a safety device should be to make it as safe as possible while having the same effect on overal vehicle performance (i.e. weight).

If teams engineer impact attenuators with new materials and/or technologies that double the minimum requirements, they should be rewarded in the design tent for their saftey innovation, and run the same mass of impact attenuator as everyone else.

They should not be rewarded for their innovation by getting away with half the weight and having the same minimum level of safety as everyone else.

[Travis Garrison]

Kevin,

Who's getting special rubber? I've heard rumors but never seen anything myself...I guess Oxford Brooks had the Avons this year and loved em...but those are availble to any team willing to go out on a limb.

Of course if you know something and just don't want to share I guess I understand http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

dhaidinger,

the impact structure shouldn't weigh much to begin with...not really low hanging fruit if you know what I mean. Why are you so concerned with it?

When I was at WWU we ran a CF honeycomb structure, I can't image it getting much lighter than that. Honestly though anyone could get most of the way to that with corrugated siding for a mold and some fiberglass for very little $$...and like I said earlier aluminum honeycomb shouldn't cost much if anything...

I just don't understand why going to the minimum but not over would be a problem...thats what racing is about...not to mention requiring teams to exceed the minimum would be a difficult rule to write http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Denny Trimble]

I heard Oxford Brooks had a special compound from Avon which was not available to other teams.

Also, Wisconsin-Madison (the only team in the top 5 on Goodyears? I don't remember what Waterloo ran) had the new 20x7-13 Goodyears which were not available for purchase except by those teams "close to goodyear". We weren't able to get our hands on any with our endurance tire award, either.

[JesseN]

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

The Skid Pad tests lateral acceleration both ways - left and right. I suggest that Acceleration be renamed "Longitudinal Acceleration" and tested both ways, forwards and backwards (with Skid Pad = "Lateral Acceleration").

The course would be two cones about 120 metres apart. Cars would start next to one cone, accelerate hard towards the second cone, brake hard, do a hairpin turn around the second cone, then accelerate back to the first cone, brake, and corner. This would be one lap. The cornering should be done in opposite directions (left and right for a figure 8) to discourage weight biasing. Cones down each side would prevent the cars from "opening out" the hairpins, so hairpin speed would be very slow.

If the organisers only want to test for a single "panic stop", then only do one lap. If testing for brake fade, then do 10 laps. Lowest ET scores highest points. I doubt many current cars' brakes would be unaffected after 10 laps. In fact, long run-off zones would be handy...

Z </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you're trying to get away from events that promote driver talent, this isn't such a good idea. As idiot-proof as a minimum distance U turn is, there's still a LOT of time to be made up by driving it correctly.

And "testing for brake fade" is, IMO, silly for the design goals (statement) of the car. The car is supposedly designed to be an autocross car. Autocross is made up of minute long sections with usually at most 6-8 very short, hard braking points. Fade is almost never an issue unless you ride the brakes an awful lot, but that's a user issue, not a car design issue.

[Z]

JesseN,

I agree that the U-turns of a long, skinny figure-8 would put teams with good drivers at an advantage. But then again, so do all the other dynamic events. Even the Skid-Pad requires some driver skill. Likewise, I agree that real autocross doesn't work the brakes too hard. But looking at FSAE as an engineering competition, and considering the importance of good brakes in general, I think that providing a harder test for the brakes would be a good thing (there is no really hard test at the moment).

To be honest, I proposed the 10 lap "Longitudinal Acceleration" event mainly because I thought it would be great fun to watch, in a MythBusters sort of way... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I reckon the attrition rate would be higher than Endurance. Brakes catching fire after 5 laps. Engines blowing up on the tenth lap. Guys spinning out everywhere. And that Helsinki driver drifting the car in sideways from twenty metres out, then hanging the tail out just past the turnaround pylon and immediately accelerating out... Ahh, so that's what they mean by a "Skandinavian flick"... And their brakes weren't even warm! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Regarding "spec engines": Aaargh!!! What next? Spec car formula???!!!

I propose a new rule: "Engines must be entirely student made!" Hmmm, maybe that's a bit harsh. So how about; "No OEM engines allowed. Engines must be designed and built by the students, with the only bought-in components allowed being those that are widely available as aftermarket components, eg. nuts and bolts, chains and sprockets, bearing shells, ball/roller bearings, piston rings, pistons (?), valves and valve springs, ECU's, etc.". Likewise for the rest of the drivetrain.

Well, that's just a thought. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I wonder how many in-line fours with six speed boxes there would be with this rule change?

Z

[Sam Zimmerman]

I disagree with the spec engines, tires, etc.

Imagine this. At the end of competition a complete set of drawings for every car is made available to every team. Attached to these drawings is a check for $10,000, the maximum any team can spend on a car (minus travel expenses.) Spec engines and tires are provided.

Who do you think will be perennial top teams in this competition? Cornell, UW, UTA, UMR, ...
Of course, the middle of the pack would change around a bit. The teams that procrastinated all year will still be welding in the paddocks at competition.

By and large, the competition is about your faculty advisor, your infrastructure in place, and (perhaps most importantly) your ability to execute a plan. Most of your design is a result of the above items and the teams that have it will still have it no matter what you "spec."

[JesseN]

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

I agree that the U-turns of a long, skinny figure-8 would put teams with good drivers at an advantage. But then again, so do all the other dynamic events. Even the Skid-Pad requires some driver skill. Likewise, I agree that real autocross doesn't work the brakes too hard. But looking at FSAE as an engineering competition, and considering the importance of good brakes in general, I think that providing a harder test for the brakes would be a good thing (there is no really hard test at the moment). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Engineering is the ability/training to design something that meets the actual needs of it's intended use, not to be overbuilt because it's "better" or "cooler". As long as you have a margin of saftey, minimums are your goal.

Obviously the other dynamic events are very driver oriented, but the latest few posts in this thread had some discussion as to what FSAE should be...engineering or winning. I'm competitive just like JReyenga, and we're both avid autocrossers of production cars, so maybe we're a bit biased here. But as long as you can explain, and back up with data, why your setup works, the fastest FSAE is, IMO, the best engineered version for the given design goal, which is to build a racecar.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">To be honest, I proposed the 10 lap "Longitudinal Acceleration" event mainly because I thought it would be great fun to watch, in a MythBusters sort of way... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I reckon the attrition rate would be higher than Endurance. Brakes catching fire after 5 laps. Engines blowing up on the tenth lap. Guys spinning out everywhere. And that Helsinki driver drifting the car in sideways from twenty metres out, then hanging the tail out just past the turnaround pylon and immediately accelerating out... Ahh, so that's what they mean by a "Skandinavian flick"... And their brakes weren't even warm! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Z </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This...I like!http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Rob.C]

i dont think that brookes had anything special on the tyre front! as i am led to believe, we run the same tyres as brookes, as do several other uk teams, the reason that most of you guys in the US think that are special is that they arent really available in the US. but are freely available to people who a, ask avon nicely, and b, are willing to pay for them!

can i ask, how much do people pay for what tyres? purely out of interest!

and how many of the non aus teams are going 2 aus!? us being one of them.

[adrial]

https://www.hoosiertire.com/Fsaeinfo.htm

Unless you have a hookup ... which we dont.

How much are the avons?

[Jreyenga]

I have another idea for not so much a rule change, but a slight change to the competition.

Since the objective for vehicle design is to build a sellable autocross car, why not have the competition in-line with the SCCA autocross national championship?

Pros:
More central in the US (Topeka, KS)
can easily handle running through 240 drivers, but may have to extend the competition by 1 day and have a fsae day
Run on the kinds of courses that define autocross
Direct comparison to other race cars
Really fun atmosphere (it's the largest motorsports competition in the world, 1200 drivers)
Competition is in September, people will have the summer, which is typically academicly slow, to finish and test the cars.
Topeka has friendly stippers (Texas A&M knows what I'm talking about)


Cons:
Not a port city, it'll be harder for international teams
It's in Kansas
Bumpy surface, but starting in 2006, they will be moving up the road to Heartland park and a purpose built asphalt autocross area
You miss a week of fall classes (welcome to my world)


I'm sure there are more of both the pros and cons. Basically, nationals is a 4-day event (Tuesday through Friday), with two different courses running from 7 am till 6 pm. An extra 240 drivers would be hard to fit in, but if some of the SCCA staff could be convinced to stay one more day, Saturday could be the fsae day. If cut down to two runs for each driver, they could finish both courses and have time for an enduro. The judging and all else could be done on Thursday and Friday in paddock and in a back corner of the lot.

You'd be assigned a grid spot and a time to run. If your car doesn't work, you get a 5 minute mechanical, and if it still doesn't work, you lose the run. Alternately, you could do the full 3 runs (or 4), and lose points for not taking a run or taking a mechanical. This could be indicative of the reliability of the car, but without the "all or nothing" points of the enduro.... breaking on the last lap sucks.

The port city bit and losing time in the fall semester might be major sticking points though. Anyone think this is a bat-shit dumb idea? or might be kinda cool? I'm not a big fan of splitting it into east and west, and this way it's much closer for California teams... though still kinda far.

[Kamil S]

Sounds interesting, but I think that would take away from the static events. And as much as most gearheads out there say they don't care about the presentations, it's still the core of what you did.

[Denny Trimble]

Several teams already make the trip to Nationals. There is an FSAE class, and it's a lot of fun! We'd go again if we had the funds.

[Jreyenga]

I mainly like the idea because it's central in the US, and you wouldn't have to have an east and west competition. Also, with the event coming after summer, more cars would probably be finished and well polished, upping the level of competition.

I really enjoy seeing fsae cars at nats. I've gone the last two years for non-fsae competition, and I'll be back again this year.

I don't see how it would take away from the static events. They can still be done, but now there may be a couple hundred non-fsae racers that are curious about what you have to say.

Also it might be more usefull for sponsorships. Though I'm not trying to pretend SCCA nats is highly prestigious or marketable, there are now 1200 other racers there and significant write-ups of every class in several national magazines that normaly aren't concerned with fsae.

Finally, a very high percentage of autocross competitors are in engineering. Making friends can lead to even more job possibilities, on top of the networking potential that already shows up to competition.

I know it would be a pretty big change, but I think it'd be great.

[Kamil S]

Hmmm, interesting point to get across to the event planners. I do like the September fact though... you could get a LOT of testing done in the summer.

[Mike Cook]

Speaking of having competition in September...How many people have to miss there finals in may to go to competition? For Maryland, it is really tough trying to study for finals and finish all the little things that need to be finished on the car at the same time. This mostly involves very long nights and little sleep. Hardly good for getting good grades.

[Dr. Bob Woods]

What I would like to see is to have the event in Detroit, have the event in California, do not allow a team to register for both, and then have an event at SCCA Nationals in Topeka in September to determine bragging rights for the overall winner.

We could dispense with all of the static judging and just have a score composed of the Solo II time and a special event just for FSAE. We don't have a metric for slalom in FSAE, nor for braking. We use a combined skid-pad (150 ft and 50 ft in a figure 8) with a slalom on one leg and a chicane on the other.

I think it is too late for this year to restrict registration in both events, but that is what I would like to see this evolve to. You are right, SCCA Nationals is a great opportunity to be around the best drivers in the country. They love our cars and the involvement with FSAE. There is a lot of attention given to that event. I think ours would add to it.

If you agree with this, let your opinions be heard so I can work on SAE to make it happen.

-Dr. Bob Woods
UTA

[Big Bird]

I'll reserve full judgement until I've read all the posts on this thread,(I've only read your intitial post Denny). But to be honest, I don't think rule changes are really necessary. There is plenty of scope for different designs, and I don't believe we have converged on a single, must-do solution to succeed in this comp. I think the continued success of some teams is more to do with their project management more than any design decisions they make.

But I've got five pages of posts to read, so I might change my mind yet.....

Cheers all

[Kamil S]

I do feel Mike's pain though... would it be too hard to bump the competition into the second week of june or so for finals sake?

[Denny Trimble]

I think Dr. Woods is really on to something here! I'd love to see the big trophy be awarded at Nationals. That would really be something.

The courses are completely different from what's in the FSAE rulebook, but the event fits the "concept of the competition" perfectly: build a car for the weekend autocrosser. A weekend autocrosser who has $25k to spend on an autocross-only car will definitely take it to Nationals!

[Dave M]

Im with Dr. Bob on this one. Lets see how many cars start running aero if this happens. Nationals is usually considered very fast as far as autocrossing goes too.

[Kevin Hayward]

Speaking form an interantional competitors perspective I don't like the idea of the SCCA Nationals as a form of FSAE finals. Not being able to travel to an international design competition would be a big turn-off. We have learnt so much from the design event (and other statics) in the US in the last two years of travelling.

In addition I doubt we could gather as much sponsor support for travelling as we have if were were just travelling to a race.

This is a bit of a selfish post. The SCCA National event would probably be a really good final for the US teams. I dont think it is good for the international teams. I guess it depends on how the SAE want the event to go.

The more thought I put into the whole rules issue the more I see how they are really quite balanced. Hard-core garage junkies complain that the design event etc are too subjective. Future vehicle dynamicists complain that too many points are given for driver dependant events. However if results show anything in order to win an FSAE event you need to have a lot of areas covered. Every flavour of engineering has some sort of importance in the final score.

Kev

[D-Train]

I really don't like the idea of changing the rules in any way that limits their decisions, i.e with specific engines, tyres, etc. I think one of the best things about this competition is the freedom you really have in some areas. That said, i'd like more freedom with things like engine selection - diesels, rotaries, etc.

I like the idea of putting emphasis on design, but the enduro can act as some good validation of your designs. Maybe less emphasis on autocross, or the influence of driver skill on overall rankings.

I think for now the rules do justice for the competition, but it might be interesting to see things shaken ip a little.

[Eddie Martin]

There is always a lot of talk about "the weekend autocrosser" and how the tracks are too slow etc. but we all know what the rules (track specs) are and what to expect at a competition. I assume people design these vehicles for an fsae competition and not for the weekend SCCA autocrosser. If we were really designing them for someone to take to an SCCA style autocross every other weekend they would be completely different animals.

People also keep going on about "a real autocross", well the events at an fsae competition are real. The speeds may be a bit lower but they must be for safety. It would be no use designing a car to run on a super speedway when you know the race is on a 1/4 mile oval and then spending your time complaining it is not a "real oval".

Got to agree with Geoff's points. At the Claude Rouelle seminars he has a 10 point pyramid about the keys to a successful racing team. The top 3 most important things were management, individual skills and team spirit. If you aren't scoring 800 points or more at a competition it isn't the rules or the established teams that is the problem rather these 3 points, in my opinion.

Don't get me wrong I think going to extra events to run these cars is great but it should always be secondary to the main competition. As I said before the only things I think could be changed is a further streamlining of the cost event, a better structure to the design events outside the usa and maybe some tinkering with the autox scoring.

How about this for something controversial, a maximum weight of 550 lbs for non first year cars. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[JesseN]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Denny Trimble:
Several teams already make the trip to Nationals. There is an FSAE class, and it's a lot of fun! We'd go again if we had the funds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

5 or 6 teams out of 140 is usually all that show up. And then UTA usually has 3 cars running. I think it would be really cool if we could increase the number of schools to 20-30.

[JesseN]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Eddie Martin:
There is always a lot of talk about "the weekend autocrosser" and how the tracks are too slow etc. but we all know what the rules (track specs) are and what to expect at a competition. I assume people design these vehicles for an fsae competition and not for the weekend SCCA autocrosser. If we were really designing them for someone to take to an SCCA style autocross every other weekend they would be completely different animals.

People also keep going on about "a real autocross", well the events at an fsae competition are real. The speeds may be a bit lower but they must be for safety. It would be no use designing a car to run on a super speedway when you know the race is on a 1/4 mile oval and then spending your time complaining it is not a "real oval".
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to the '05 rules, the Enduro limitations on speeds are awfully close to what you would see at SCCA Nationals, with speeds maybe moved up only 5 mph. The actual autocross portion of FSAE is slower, but the reasoning behind that isn't really clear, at least to me.

For example, my production car that's capable of ~1.2 lateral G steady state in race trim never hit more than ~54 mph on either course at the 2003 or 2004 SCCA Nationals. So with the enduro already allowing speeds of 65mph, I can't imagine FSAE going "much" faster than that at SCCA Nationals, even with aero and a huge power to weight advantage over my car. Maybe UTA or another team present at either year has some better data to compare what a real FSAE would be doing?

Also, I would think that instead of waiting till Saturday to run a "FSAE" day, see if there's the possibility to run on Monday, the day before the National Championship. The National staff is already there, since the ProSolo Finale is the weekend prior, and the coures are already setup Sunday night, so everything would be ready to go and the people in place.

[Dave M]

"normal" autocrosses that we host have stock classes running 65mph in the longest straight. We usualy top out at 75-85mph depending on course and driver. The fsae events are slower than normall autocrosses but its for safety. until the number of cars finishing the endurance goes up the course will stay tight.

[JesseN]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dave M:
"normal" autocrosses that we host have stock classes running 65mph in the longest straight. We usualy top out at 75-85mph depending on course and driver. The fsae events are slower than normall autocrosses but its for safety. until the number of cars finishing the endurance goes up the course will stay tight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A-mod doesn't go over 80 mph. (aero limited) That being said, and with those cars having signifigantly more grip and power than your typical FSAE car(230+ hp), I don't see how a course at Topeka would be a problem.