UWA / Lotus 88 type cars

[Charles Kaneb]

UWA brought an incomplete car comprised of essentially an undertray on wheels with a cab and engine suspended above it. They didn't compete in dynamic events as the car wasn't ready to run, but were there any objections to the car's general principle of operation? It should be legal - after all, other cars have unsprung undertrays - but switching to that type of car will be a big design-level change and I want to be sure it won't be banned like UWA's front wheel pants.

[TMichaels]

You should probably ask the rules committee and not the forum members http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[PatClarke]

Charles,
You really shouldn't write inflamatory messages that are inaccurate and opinionated.
Firstly, UWA's wheel pants were not 'banned'! The team chose to remove them rather than modify them slightly to meet the scrutineers requirements.
And, as Tobias has mentioned, take up the issue of 'twin chassis' cars with the rules committee

Pat

[theTTshark]

South Dakota School of Mines ran a twin chassis concept at Michigan this past competition.

[Pete Marsh]

Hi Charles,
UWA's car also had very non traditional suspension, that takes quite some effort to understand with the kinematics not entirely clear on first observation, that may have been the issue just as much as the twin chassis design.
The scrutineers did indicate they had no objection to the suspension design, however some rules comity people did express an opinion they thought it was illegal and we should have asked for a rules clarification prior to the event.
The teams position is it easily complied with the rule, which is quite clear, so no clarification was required.
Pat talked of where tyre forces were reacted, and essentially I think required the mandated suspension travel to exist relative to BOTH "chassis" type components, because they both have loads reacted on them, a distinction from an unsprung mounted under tray. Our position is the lower floor is merely a suspension component, much the same as a wishbone or beam axle, with loads reacted through it. It would be interesting to see if the South Dakota car, that presumably ran without issue, met this standard.
We were informed by Pat at the comp that some legality process had been started with the USA rules comity, however there has been no feedback, or communication of any sort, with regard to this.

After a very disappointing comp, with wildly contradictory sentiments coming from all directions,(and often from the same people) I would recommend a rule clarification for everything that isn't a direct copy of standard practice.

Better still, just build, or actually, "use the design process to design your own solution" but come up with the standard car they like to see, and things will go much better for you.

Pete

[PatClarke]

Peter,

The 'legality' or otherwise of the UWA car was discussed at length at FSAEA. The Aussie Rules Committee could see both sides of the discussion very clearly.
Fortunately, from thair perspective, the car could not run, so the pressure to make a decision that would have global implications did not need to be made and a decision was made to present the issue to the International Rules Committee for a fair decision that would not appear to have any regional bias. This was done before Christmas, and like you, I have not had any feedback either. Perhaps there has not been a Rules Committee convened to discuss it.

My personal view?

I appreciated the fresh thinking and I quite liked the concept! I certainly did not feel 'It's different, therefore it's wrong'!

From an engineering point of view, I was not happy with reacting the brake forces in particular through the undertray through a few 6mm bolts as well as a few other issues we talked about at the time, but these were really scrutineering issues, not Design Issues.

I was disappointed that the team had not submitted such a radical concept to the Rules Committee before the event so avoiding the upsetting and disappointing situation.

Your statement that 'We thought it was legal and so we didn't need to ask' was also a disappointment after the bunfight in 2011 with the UWA 'wheel pants', so the team knew that bringing avant garde ideas to the competition should be preceeded by a clearance from the Rules Committee.

I was disappointed that the UWA team we have known and respected for many years were coming across, in some peoples eyes, as a bunch of smarta**es. That comment was actually made by someone I won't name.

And I understand your disappointment with the whole affair, but your suggestion that teams should avoid designs that are 'outside the square' is no fair.

So, should..

1). The Rules Committee approve the concept.
2). The design proves to be fast and reliable on track.

Then, what you guys have concieved could well revolutionise what FSAE cars are like into the future and for that you should be applauded. But the process at FSAE-A is what was flawed in more than one way.

No doubt we will have a Rules Committee determination in due course and we can get on with life http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers

Pat

[Jay Lawrence]

Pat,

If the scutineers did their jobs, would there be such a high failure rate? Why are cars that have disastrous failures (wheels falling off, etc) allowed on track in the first place? It's just interesting that an 'avante garde' concept may not have been allowed to run yet so many 'standard' concepts are allowed despite their history of failures.

As far as asking the rules committee goes, isn't that a contradiction of the motorsport industry, where innovations are typically allowed to compete until the rules catch up (Chaparrall car, McLaren's 'movable aero device', etc.)?

Disclaimer: I realise that scrutineers aren't mind readers and can't see the future and that quite possibly I am talking out of my behind. I have not much of an opinion either way, it's just an interesting notion to me.

[js10coastr]

Originally posted by Jay Lawrence:

If the scutineers did their jobs, would there be such a high failure rate?

Conversely, if the students did their jobs would there be such a high failure rate?

[Dunk Mckay]

Originally posted by js10coastr:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jay Lawrence:

If the scutineers did their jobs, would there be such a high failure rate?

Conversely, if the students did their jobs would there be such a high failure rate? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oxymoron: student vs. job

I loved the UWA concept, I think if FSAE is aiming to encourage learning for future careers in motorsport that more emphasis should be put on aerodynamic development, as this seems to be the way of the business these days, certainly in the higher echelons. Recent rule changes have made steps in this direction, and I realize my next suggestion is going to sound a bit bold, but I'd like to see more open tracks, with faster corners. At the speeds we go aero doesn't make a huge difference, at my university this year the best justification I could give to our academic staff for dedicating resources to developing an aero package was not the benefits at comp (although there are some), but the educational benefit for budding engineers on a motorsport engineering course. Yes I realize there are greater safety concerns with higher speeds, but I think suitable precautions can be taken, if the holy grail of a full rules rewrite ever gets underway an increase in restrictor size (22mm?) and wider tracks with larger radii wouldn't go amiss in my book. It'd be nice to be able to build a car that can actually go round a track significantly faster than a simple go kart can (many non team members on our course tease us because of this fact).

With regards to the legality of such concepts as UWA's i think if ever any rules are put into question I think a lot of leniency should be given if there are no safety concerns. If there is an arguable case for it being legal, and it does not compromise anyones safety then I can't see why the car shouldn't be allowed to run. The whole point is to encourage students to think and come up with their own ideas, we shouldn't be afraid to "innovate" with our designs.
I'm sure this is most likely the primary consideration by officials and rules commitees already (right?), but I'd just wanted to clarify that opinion.

What I really want to know is will the UWA car ever run and if so when and where?

[PatClarke]

Jay,
Firstly, I cannot comment regarding the scrutineers apart from saying that their job is to ensure the safety and legality of the cars. It is the student's job to ensure the reliability...and as the Good Book says, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jay Lawrence:
As far as asking the rules committee goes, isn't that a contradiction of the motorsport industry, where innovations are typically allowed to compete until the rules catch up (Chaparrall car, McLaren's 'movable aero device', etc.)?
QUOTE]

You have a misunderstanding of what FSAE is all about! This is not 'Motorsport'! The motorsport angle is the bait on the hook that attracts the young engineers.

FSAE is about giving graduating students an interesting project to prepare them for life in the 'Real World'. Industry complained that the Universities were turning out 'engineers' that were theory rich and practical poor. That it was taking several years for industry to convert an 'engineer' into an Engineer. FSAE has addressed that issue very well, but it is still not 'motorsport'.

The idea that you should be permitted to do whatever you wish unless it is proscribed by the rules does not apply in FSAE. We have a rulebook and whether you agree with it or not, you have to abide by it. Part of those rules state that if there is an area that needs clarification, there is a mechanism to address that.

Remember, the SAE, VDI, IMechE and other organisers and officials (Including people like myself) have a duty of care at law. To let inexperienced students go rampant with a vehicle design that could hurt someone can end up having people defend their position in a court of law. God knows enough accidents happen as it is!

By the way, what was controversial about the Chapperal? Powered Ground effects were legal back then, but when the effect of a piston seizure in the 2 stroke Kohler fan engine was understood, then those things were banned.

What the heck was 'McLaren's moveable aero device'? Moveable aero has been banned in mainstream for many years and any attempt to utilise such a system is cheating. And don't give me that bumpf about the engineers being smarter than the rulemakers! Cheats are cheats!

One freedom that is allowed under FSAE rules is the use of 'live' aero devices, unsprung wings and undertrays. This is because the speeds at FSAE events is carefully regulated. But is a concept the Rules Committee watch carefully, and something like the 2012 UWA car might be the 'straw' that has that technology banned.

The culture of 'It's not cheating if you don't get caught' that pervades a lot of areas of motorsport has no place in FSAE.

NOTE!
This last statement does not imply that I think any team has cheated (even if I know they have at times in the past! Though not in the context of this post)

Pat

[Jay Lawrence]

Pat,

Fair point re: motorsport vs. FSAE. Although I do think the competition is still very much a dynamic event, and so it should be (otherwise, who would bother?).

With my examples, I was referring to technologies that were allowed to compete until something happened to stop them competing (e.g. piston seizure on the Chaparral, governing body deciding to label McLaren's dampers as 'moveable aero devices' (not McLaren's intention, if you choose to believe them), etc).

Dunk, I believe that more open tracks would provide a decent learning experience, particularly in regards to aero, but it would have to be in more suitable locations. Australia continues to use a fairly unsuitable location that probably shouldn't have a more open track. I always dreamed about taking one of our older turbo cars overseas to really let it have its head on your open tracks!

[PatClarke]

Just a couple of conversational comments Jay.

I agree that without the .motorsport' theme, not many would attend. Should the event be 'Formula Sewing Machine or Formula Cement Mixer' the outcome for industry would probably be the same......but there would be very few participants!

The banned 'moveable aero device' you refer to was Renault's mass damper (one of the FIA's more idiotic interpretations). The McLaren 'mass damper', their 'inerter' was never banned, mainly because few outside McLaren knew what it was as it looked just like a third damper. Virtually all top level motorsport cars, F1, GT etc use inerters today.
(The electrical analog of the 'inerter' is a capacitor.)

The intent of the inerter and the Renault mass damper was to damp the spring effect of the tyre, not to offer any aero advantage.

The 2012 Australian course was much more open than in the past, but if you study lap times all around the world, there is no such thing as a 'wide open course'. The insurers ensure that!

Interestingly, the fastest ever FSAE course was at the first FSAE-A event where the locals struggled to get around and the visitors from Rochester and Arlington found they had a sixth gear in the transmission and they were boiling their brake fluid. The UTA team admitted to exceeding 160kph at one point on the course!

As for the suitability of the VU venue for the Australian event, this is a matter of concern and discussion by management before every Aussie event, but to date, it has been impossible to find a more suitable venue that is viable. If anyone has some suggestions, let Geoff Pearson at the SAE office know ASAP because he would love to hear from you.

Cheers

Pat

[Markus]

Jay, I think you're referring to McLaren's inertia dampers - "J dampers", which are used to stabilize the ride height. These haven't been banned as far as I know but I don't actively follow F1.

Renault F1 double-mass-damper was banned as a moving aerodynamical device. While FIA ruled them out under aerodynamics rule was clearly a bit misleading but that system had other rules-related problems (non-rigidly fixed part inside the monocoque).

While both of these dampers are essentially used to do the same thing - cause an opposite equal force to the body compared to wheel movement - the enclosure and fixing method are quite different.

Edit: Pat you beat me to it, should drink my coffee faster. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Jay Lawrence]

Ahhh, my bad. When I said McLaren I was referring to the Renault system. Thanks for the correction.

I wasn't at Oz in 2012, but the years I have been I find the courses to be very tight indeed (no doubt due to the restrictions of the venue as mentioned).

[Max Trenkle]

Right now the rules permit a plethora of ways to create a car.

I would really hate to see new ideas get banned and restrict the amount of ways we are allowed to design a car. This competition allows for a multitude of 'solutions' that can win, and I don't want it to turn into a modern racing series where all of the cars look the same. Having single, double, and quad cylinder cars, with or without aero, and etc running the same comp and staying competitive with each other, now that's pretty sweet IMO. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Z]

Pat,

It used to be that the first and foremost objective of FSAE was to challenge the students' "creativity and imagination". In fact, this was stated in Rule 1.1 - Competition Objective. This C&I objective has now been relegated to a sub-clause, and it may be headed out the back door.

I have asked many times on this Forum if any FSAE Official is prepared to publicly support C&I. So far not a single official has offered any support.

Your comments regarding the banning of Chaparral's 2J "Sucker Car" (which, BTW, had nothing to do with "piston seizure") suggest you are not a supporter of C&I. Your decades long advice to the students to keep building the same-old, same-old "PAT" car confirms this.

So here is your chance to offer some transparency on this matter.

"CREATIVITY and IMAGINATION". Are you for it, or against it???

Z

[Edward M. Kasprzak]

Originally posted by Z:
Pat,

It used to be that the first and foremost objective of FSAE was to challenge the students' "creativity and imagination". In fact, this was stated in Rule 1.1 - Competition Objective. This C&I objective has now been relegated to a sub-clause, and it may be headed out the back door.

I have asked many times on this Forum if any FSAE Official is prepared to publicly support C&I. So far not a single official has offered any support.

Your comments regarding the banning of Chaparral's 2J "Sucker Car" (which, BTW, had nothing to do with "piston seizure") suggest you are not a supporter of C&I. Your decades long advice to the students to keep building the same-old, same-old "PAT" car confirms this.

So here is your chance to offer some transparency on this matter.

"CREATIVITY and IMAGINATION". Are you for it, or against it???

Z

Hello Z,

Okay, I'll bite.

I for one don't think creativity and imagination are discouraged in Formula SAE. I do think, however, that the design judges value solid engineering practices first, and C&I second. Said another way, C&I is worthless if it isn't supported by sufficient knowledge and a proper design/analysis, build, test/validate, post-analysis cycle. Sure, I like seeing new approaches, but whether a team's suspension design is considered "C&I" or a common pushrod SLA I'm going to ask the same kinds of questions during the design event. And I expect the same kinds of knowledge, reasoning and validation.

As for "transparency", the design event scoring guidelines are published for all to see, and I'll note that there is a section labeled "Creativity". This aspect of the competition is never lost on the design judges. It indicates that a "C&I" design always has the ability to outscore a "common" design, but again there is no automatic benefit to C&I without the primary concerns: student knowledge and a proper design, build, validate process.

While I can't speak to what anyone else has said, I think some of the general encouragement to build a "common" car comes from valuing solid engineering practices over C&I. Students learning to operate as proficient engineers is an essential aspect of these competitions. This is often (but not always) easier to do when thinking "in the box" than "outside the box". I'll note that many (but not all) experienced student members on this forum advise Formula SAE/Student newcomers to build a simple vehicle first since there's so much to learn, including the whole project management aspect.

I took a look a the rules to see if the competition objectives have changed through the years. Here is part of the 1985 Formula SAE rules:

---begin 1985 rules quote---

CONCEPT OF THE COMPETITION

The Formula SAE competition is an engineering competition for engineering students to conceive, design, fabricate, and race a small formula-style racing car. The limitations on the car frame and engine are very lenient so that the knowledge, creativity, and imagination of the students are challenged to the utmost. The cars will be built with a team effort over a period of about one year and the car will be taken to a host institution for judging and comparison with approximately 15 other cars from across the nation. The end result is a fantastic experience for young engineers in a meaningful engineering project as well as the opportunity of working in a dedicated team effort.

---end 1985 rules quote---

And now the same part of the current rules:

---begin 2013 rules quote---

A1.1 Formula SAE Competition Objective

The Formula SAE ® Series competitions challenge teams of university undergraduate and graduate students to conceive, design, fabricate, develop and compete with small, formula style, vehicles.

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

---end 2013 rules quote---

My view is that, formatting aside, the today's rules say essentially the same thing as they did in 1985 about knowledge, creativity and imagination. Z, I guess I don't understand where you feel this objective has been lost. It's still in the rules and it's in the design judging guidelines.

Anyway, that's my perspective. In replying I'm risking getting into the middle of the Pat/Z crossfire (yikes!), but that's my answer to the "C&I for or against" question.

[Big Bird]

I have asked many times on this Forum if any FSAE Official is prepared to publicly support C&I. So far not a single official has offered any support.

I am now an "FSAE Official". I publically support C&I, and have done my best to demonstrate it in my engineering work and in my writing.

Kind regards,

[Kevin Hayward]

Pete,

UWA should definitely have run this past the organisers for rules clarifications. I am confused myself whether to term the floor an aerodynamic device, a second chassis, or a suspension component. It has performs functions from all of these. It took me quite a bit of time to come to the conclusion that it probably didn't violate any such rule and if it was completed it would likely be as safe as any other concept presented there. It also appeared far less controversial than the wheel pods of the year before; just for the record I think both the wheel pods and the idea mechanical interconnected system were legal to the rules at the time. However a few things beyond the concept that I hadn't checked out were:

1. If defined as a suspension component do all of the fasteners all the way back to the chassis comply with required minimums etc.

2. If defined as a chassis component does it meet all the construction requirements of a composite chassis, how does it affect side impact for instance given that it is the outermost part of the side impact.

3. If defined as an aero part how do we go safety wise with mounting suspension to aerodynamic devices (the other way around is okay)

This is just quickly thinking about it, but I would likely have more questions that could be readily answered by communication from the team. I think that this is a fair request of the rules committee.

The rules are predominantly concerned with safety and being able to readily assess safety in a scrutineering environment. When presented with something quite unique that blurs the lines between aerodynamic, chassis and suspension components it makes it difficult to make quick on the spot decisions based on compliance (i.e. about 30-60mins to scrutineer every system). If the design is valid by the rules at comp it will be valid 8 months earlier. Is it better to make the argument 8 months earlier and get a design rejected, or at comp. Fortunately no decision about compliance had to be made at the comp because the car was not complete and ready to run.

Overall I think it was a very impressive idea, but clearly the team did not complete with the resources (mainly time) available to them. Is this good design? Is this good engineering practice? Is this an approach we want to encourage for the majority of teams? By the way these are not rhetorical questions, my opinion on these varies. When I see car after car that are poor copies of each other I think what a waste of an opportunity. But then I see more unique cars not even close to being competitive (or even running) and think what a waste of time.

Formula Student comps are supportive of C&I. There may be less radical solutions due to the the teams rather than the organisers. It is pretty common that groups tend to make more conservative design decisions. In that respect it is commendable that UWA were able to get a team pointed in quite a different direction.

I think the rules clarification is primarily for ensuring safety, than eliminating innovation. Safety is a much bigger concern for FSAE/Student than it is for professional motorsport. These comps do not make profit. Insurance for the events is expensive. A lot of Uni's barely tolerate the teams and a lot of it is run on a knife's edge. If we start regularly setting students on fire, giving them back, leg, and arm injuries in accidents, or worst case killing them these comps are not going to last very long. Give the rules committee (and scrutineers) enough time to assess whether the substantially different approaches to safety critical items is undertaken.

Kev

[Frank]

Mr. Z,

Have you tried being a scrutineer at Formula SAE?

I suggest you try.

I’ve had a go at it, and it is not easy. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

These are the reasons it is hard:

• You are confronted by a vast array of different configurations.
• A slight variation of certain designs can yield non-functional or even dangerous results. You have to check a lot of things.
• You can not be sure that the item you are scrutinizing has been tested, even if the team is boasting about how many miles they have completed.
• You are typically surrounded by hyped, nervous, and emotional students. Sometimes their parents are nearby and can be right PITA.
• You are very aware of the expectation of the universities that the event will be safe.
• You are very aware that if the car does fail dramatically on course, that people will ask who scruitineered the vehicle.

The absolute LAST thing you want to deal with is a radically different design that had not been reviewed prior to the event.

The best part about being a scrutineer at Formula SAE is that you get to have a good look at all the creative work.

[JWard]

Doesn't particularly add to the discussion but I did note that the UWAM car going to West is not their 12 car. (Not sure how west is setup - do they only allow cars that passed scrut at FSAE A in december?)

[TMichaels]

I also do not understand why this hasn't been asked before? What does it cost? Just a mail and it prevents so many problems for both parties, the officials and the team.

Just think about the frustration, if the car would have been ready-to-drive and the scrutineers or other officials would have banned it from running? Maybe not, because it was not rules compliant, but because they feel that no good engineering practice had been applied, because the team did not hand in detailed information about the structure carrying parts of the suspension etc?

The discussion is very redundant to the discussion about the wheel pods in my opinion. Is it blurry in the rules? Yes. Would I have asked the rules committee about it? Hell yeah!
Why risk the effort of an entire year, if this particular risk can be reduced to zero by sending a mail?

Regarding the re-occuring creativity and imagination thing: It really starts to bore me. Show me a single worldwide and recognized competition that is less regulated than FS/FSAE, but covers the same complexity and has to cover the safety of all people involved. I doubt there is one...just to repeat: Their general concept has never been banned officially. It were mainly safety concerns and the question, if this is a serious attempt to build a working suspension.

Regarding Frank's post about being a scrutineer: He is totally right. It is very different to be on the other side of the fence. Just give it a try and your view on some things will change.
Just imagine being the scrutineer checking a vehicle with a totally new approach to a safety critical system. Imagine that you let them pass and their event ends with a terrible accident. Your parents/university will be the very first to start pointing fingers at the officials for letting the car run. The sad thing is: They will also be the very first to start pointing fingers, if the respective scrutineers prevents the team from running, because he thinks that the approach has not been carried out well or is not well understood.

Another example:
When we are meeting to discuss the electric rules, it often leads to: Should we specify this or that, just in case someone has the terrible idea of implementing the system that way? In the beginning I was always the one saying: No, we do not need to prevent that. Nobody would do that...but guess what, I learned the following: If there are 1000 ways to implement a safety critical system and 999 are totally fine, while one approach might end catastrophic then you can be sure that at least one team decides to follow the catastrophic approach road...

[Z]

Edward,

Thanks for thoughtful reply. I know there are some officials in FSAE that support C&I. My main concern is that they are too few in number, and not vocal enough about its importance. Hence my harping on about it here...


Originally by Edward:
I for one don't think creativity and imagination are discouraged in Formula SAE. I do think, however, that the design judges value solid engineering practices first, and C&I second. Said another way, C&I is worthless if it isn't supported by sufficient knowledge and a proper design/analysis, build, test/validate, post-analysis cycle.
...
I think some of the general encouragement to build a "common" car comes from valuing solid engineering practices over C&I. Students learning to operate as proficient engineers is an essential aspect of these competitions.
...
My view is that, formatting aside, the today's rules say essentially the same thing as they did in 1985 about knowledge, creativity and imagination. Z, I guess I don't understand where you feel this objective has been lost. (My emphasis added.)

The way I see it, the proof that the "C&I objective has been lost" is that today's cars are as unnecessarily complicated, expensive, difficult to build, and as slow as they were twenty years ago. (I would be interested if someone did a statistical analysis. I reckon the only real performance difference is in the tyres.) Sadly, IMO, the "solid engineering practices" that the students have gained while "learning to operate as proficient engineers" are really nothing more than learning how to "polish a turd". Sorry for being blunt, but that is the core of the problem.

Geoff Pearson put a lot of effort into his "Reasoning..." thread. It is, quite rightly, widely recommended as the most important thread any new FSAEer should read. The most important message I see in that thread is that the students should first and foremost have a good, hard, long look at the "big picture" of FSAE. Only then should they consider the details.

IMO it is the "big picture" that is of foremost importance, and this is where C&I should be used. All the little details are also important, but they are secondary, and can be taken care of by routine "solid engineering practices". In the olden days the "Ingineers" (from "ingenuity") addressed the big picture problems, while design draftsmen took care of the details. Unfortunately, modern FSAE seems intent on breeding an army of "Ungineers" (as in "Uuuuuu, wot do I polish next???"), rather than encouraging the ingenuity required to build faster cars.

The cars can be, and should be, a lot faster than they are now. And also a lot simpler, cheaper, etc. It is a big picture problem that needs to be solved. And that requires ingenuity.

I think the best example to explain all this is the T-34 Tank (http://fsae.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/125607348/m/73320357151?r=70620118151#70620118151) that I rambled on about on another thread (bottom half of post). This was an example of C&I (albeit, much of it borrowed) being used at the very top levels of design to build a machine that everyone considered to be very low-tech and crude in its details. Nevertheless, it won the biggest of prizes (1st place in WWII !). But maybe this example is too real (and scary), or maybe too old, for modern students to grasp.

So here is an easier example.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-SPkR9U8a6-o/ULF0hbYtjnI/AAAAAAAAAL0/ppEqpxUw7rY/s800/tree_swing_70s.jpg

The message here (other than that all departments stuff up) is that "ungineers" focus too much on "solid engineering practices", ie. ...

Ungineer;
"All ropes to correct specification, and strength tested? Check!
Seat to correct dimensions, surface roughness, and tested for load bearing capacity? Check!
Test driver has sat on product and validated that "rocking back and forth", as per customer request, is possible? Check!
Good! All boxes ticked, our job is done!"

... when they should really spend more time looking at the "BIG PICTURE"!

Customer;
"... I wanted a swing ... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif "

I see generations of FSAE cars that are just like frame 3 of the above cartoon. Yes, all thoroughly designed, tested, and validated...(Edit: To stress the point) ... Yep, it's just a slow as last year's car! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
~~~~~~~~~~~o0o~~~~~~~~~~~

Geoff,

I know where you stand, and I appreciate your efforts. I just hope you can exert enough influence...
~~~~~~~~~~~o0o~~~~~~~~~~~

Frank and Tobias,

Covered before, but once again...

Firstly, I have been a voluntary official in more sporting events than most of you (younger) FSAEers have had hot breakfasts. In many of those sports the players have broken bones, often quite badly. Occasionally, some have broken their necks and ended up in wheelchairs. Very rarely, players have just dropped dead. Yes, fit, healthy young men, with no apparent health problems, can sometimes just drop dead during physical exertion.

Members of FSAE teams have died while being "involved" in FSAE (I know of at least one car crash while driving to comp, possibly others). As participation numbers increase, then so also will the number of people who die while FSAEing. Guaranteed. That is how the world works. Get used to it.

Secondly, and more importantly, using "safety" as an excuse to ban something like UWA's suspension/aero concept is sheer nonsense. It is a red-herring. It is an especially lame excuse given Tobias's recent encouragement, on the Suspension Design thread, to build cars with wishbones so fragile that they snap off at the slightest hint of a bump, thus "saving" the damper and/or chassis.

Current FSAE cars are constantly shedding wheels, putting conrods through their blocks, etc. The drivers are primarily saved by the low speeds. Pretending you will save lives by banning new concepts like UWA's is crap. In fact, the UWA susp./undertray looks potentially much more robust and safer than most cars' double-wishbones.

And as pointed out on the earlier UWA thread, it is fire with the combustion cars, and electrocution with the E-cars, that are the biggest dangers. Be realistic and focus your efforts where they can make a difference.
~~~~~~~~~~~o0o~~~~~~~~~~~~

All FSAEers,

"Safety and cost" are ALWAYS the first two excuses trotted out when officials want to ban any innovation in racing. Believing those excuses is like believing a politician who promises "I will never raise taxes!"

Z

[Neil_Roberts]

Originally posted by TMichaels:
Show me a single worldwide and recognized competition that is less regulated than FS/FSAE, but covers the same complexity and has to cover the safety of all people involved.

AIAA's Design Build Fly competition doesn't quite meet all of those criteria, but it is extremely lightly regulated. The entire rule set can be read in less than 10 minutes.

AIAA DBF (http://www.aiaadbf.org/2013_files/2013_rules.htm)

The genius of the DBF rules is that they don't just encourage creativity and innovation, they demand it because the competition mission changes drastically every year.

I have been a design judge for many years and I see creativity and innovation as both primary attractions for prospective competitors and excellent learning opportunities. I have also seen a multi-year convergence on an optimum FSAE car design within each university, and among all of them. I see that as a giant problem because this covergence on a static optimum design actively discourages innovation.

That convergence is logical and predictable, and it is inevitable given a static rules environment. However, it diminishes the value of the FSAE educational experience and it places first year teams at a giant disadvantage. During the design competition, it is rare to get an answer to any question that does not include the phrase "last year". If the optimum car design changed drastically every year like DBF does, then every team would be a first year team every year. The barrier to entry would be much lower than it is now, and it would encourage and require thinking through every single step of the design from engineering first principles. The results of the competition would more clearly reflect the quality of engineering that each team achieved.

I have had a thought about how to shake up the static optimum car design within the current structure of the event, with very little change in participant risk. 2/3 of the points that can be scored are in the dynamic events, so that gives the point structure of the dynamic events a strong influence on the optimum car design. The optimum car design can be altered simply by changing the allocation of points among the dynamic events. For example, let's say that for one year, the points available in the acceleration event are 3 times the current allocation, and those additional points are taken away from the other dynamic events so that the total maximum point count stays constant. Then, the next year, the points available in the skidpad event are tripled, and so on. If the optimum design changes every year, then last year's experience must be replaced by this year's engineering. I have proposed this concept, but it did not gain traction. So, I do what I can to encourage innovative solutions to the static set of challenges that the competitors face.

[TMichaels]

AIAA's Design Build Fly competition doesn't quite meet all of those criteria, but it is extremely lightly regulated. The entire rule set can be read in less than 10 minutes.

Nobody sits in these aircrafts. This is basically building an RC model. Additionally this is building a prototype to carry weapons.

The rules have so many holes with respect to safety: They specify a maximum current of 20A, but no maximum voltage. That means I can go with 3kV or whatever. Sorry, but these rules are poor with respect to safety.


That convergence is logical and predictable, and it is inevitable given a static rules environment. However, it diminishes the value of the FSAE educational experience and it places first year teams at a giant disadvantage. During the design competition, it is rare to get an answer to any question that does not include the phrase "last year". If the optimum car design changed drastically every year like DBF does, then every team would be a first year team every year. The barrier to entry would be much lower than it is now, and it would encourage and require thinking through every single step of the design from engineering first principles. The results of the competition would more clearly reflect the quality of engineering that each team achieved.

You should read another thread in this forum, which is called "Grandfather Rules". Teams complain there about the rules not being static enough.


I have had a thought about how to shake up the static optimum car design within the current structure of the event, with very little change in participant risk. 2/3 of the points that can be scored are in the dynamic events, so that gives the point structure of the dynamic events a strong influence on the optimum car design. The optimum car design can be altered simply by changing the allocation of points among the dynamic events. For example, let's say that for one year, the points available in the acceleration event are 3 times the current allocation, and those additional points are taken away from the other dynamic events so that the total maximum point count stays constant. Then, the next year, the points available in the skidpad event are tripled, and so on. If the optimum design changes every year, then last year's experience must be replaced by this year's engineering. I have proposed this concept, but it did not gain traction. So, I do what I can to encourage innovative solutions to the static set of challenges that the competitors face.

As mentioned above, this does not really work, because many teams participate with the same car in different years. The teams from Oz have their home event at the end of the year and thus want to participate in the next year in overseas events. European teams often end the season of their car by participating in the next year's FSAE-MI or in Lincoln.

[MCoach]

Originally posted by Neil_Roberts:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TMichaels:
Show me a single worldwide and recognized competition that is less regulated than FS/FSAE, but covers the same complexity and has to cover the safety of all people involved.

AIAA's Design Build Fly competition doesn't quite meet all of those criteria, but it is extremely lightly regulated. The entire rule set can be read in less than 10 minutes.

AIAA DBF (http://www.aiaadbf.org/2013_files/2013_rules.htm)

The genius of the DBF rules is that they don't just encourage creativity and innovation, they demand it because the competition mission changes drastically every year.

I have been a design judge for many years and I see creativity and innovation as both primary attractions for prospective competitors and excellent learning opportunities. I have also seen a multi-year convergence on an optimum FSAE car design within each university, and among all of them. I see that as a giant problem because this covergence on a static optimum design actively discourages innovation.

That convergence is logical and predictable, and it is inevitable given a static rules environment. However, it diminishes the value of the FSAE educational experience and it places first year teams at a giant disadvantage. During the design competition, it is rare to get an answer to any question that does not include the phrase "last year". If the optimum car design changed drastically every year like DBF does, then every team would be a first year team every year. The barrier to entry would be much lower than it is now, and it would encourage and require thinking through every single step of the design from engineering first principles. The results of the competition would more clearly reflect the quality of engineering that each team achieved.

I have had a thought about how to shake up the static optimum car design within the current structure of the event, with very little change in participant risk. 2/3 of the points that can be scored are in the dynamic events, so that gives the point structure of the dynamic events a strong influence on the optimum car design. The optimum car design can be altered simply by changing the allocation of points among the dynamic events. For example, let's say that for one year, the points available in the acceleration event are 3 times the current allocation, and those additional points are taken away from the other dynamic events so that the total maximum point count stays constant. Then, the next year, the points available in the skidpad event are tripled, and so on. If the optimum design changes every year, then last year's experience must be replaced by this year's engineering. I have proposed this concept, but it did not gain traction. So, I do what I can to encourage innovative solutions to the static set of challenges that the competitors face. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Lower the bar for first year teams? How about raise it because teams that have been around a while, can afford to mix and match all kinds of hardware to suit the games of the year with the same access to their analysis software and confidential spreadsheets that contain all kinds of information on [REDACTED]. Oh, accel is worth 300 points this year? Hey, Charles, go pull the 609cc accel motor out of the closet. Fuel economy is worth 250 points of the endurace? Hey, Sam, go retune our 250cc single cylinder out to 1.15 lambda at part throttle, and 1.08 at WOT, we're taking the trophy this year. Yes it shakes things up, but if you have developed the tools, then applying it speeds up things like these. Compare this to other competitions that follow the format that you have mentioned. FIRST Robotics, started in USA, but is now global it seems, follows this. If you follow the trends there, you will see something that compares quite fittingly with what you are trying to avoid here, teams that consistently seem to take the top honors due to having a convergent and set design. This trend seems to follow not the randomness of the competition, but the experience and tool quality developed by the teams and their access to shops, machinery, and other manufacturing capabilities.

In something like this, the rules change for safety and to help balance for fairness as we go, but it's easy to do some research and pick up where another team had left off or damn near just by making some key observations. Formula SAE is a management competition. Some get far into the design aspect or research aspect, but above all it is a management competition and to have a team dominate like Cornell did a couple years ago, requires proper management in non-first year teams. Information must be handled, stored, and passed on properly so that the concept, structure, and goals are met with competency and understanding rather than "Oh, well we do that for (insert outdated reason here)." To what I've replied to one team that comes to mind, "Yes, but your car hasn't had (such and such feature) since 2005... Why does this make sense anymore?"


With the vast variety of specifications listed in the handbook each year, I'd offer this as evidence of non-convergent designs. If everyone were designing cars with nearly identical appearing cars that only vary by the set up or minute differences (looking at you F1) then I could agree with you. In FSAE you'll see steel and aluminum spaceframes, carbon and/or aluminum monocoques, half-coques with the other half spaceframe. Wings! No wings! Different diameter and width of tires. Engines vary wildly, material and design focus are all different. Some cars will have a track width of 50" while others may be 43" Sidewinder cars, mid engine, all kids of differentials and suspension types. This is just to name a bit.


I think Formula SAE about fine as it is structure-wise, although Germany's wet skid pad threw a nice loop for everyone. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[JT A.]

This discussion reminds me of an interesting idea I had a while ago.

Every two years, have a massive rule change that would significantly influence the design of the car. This could be done two ways- either have rules that directly say how the car can/can't be designed (ie for two years there are absolutely no aerodynamic restrictions, then the next two years wings are banned) or the rules just shift around how the points are allocated between events (fuel economy is thrown out for a couple years, then bumped up to 200 points, etc). Or you could do some combination of both types of rules. Either way, just try to really shake things up with the rules every couple years.

Now here's the crazy part...allow cars to compete for 2 years instead of just 1.

What I think this would do is:
[LIST]
<LI> reduce the resource requirement of teams by 1/2
<LI> The first year of every new set of rules, you get to see which teams are the best at adapting quickly, coming up with new & creative solutions to the rules, and implementing them effectively.
<LI> The second year, you get to see which teams are the best at testing and development. Or maybe there's a team that had a really radical new idea but couldn't quite get it together the first year, so this gives them a second chance to work out the kinks and show how their design can dominate.

Currently, I think there is a lack of new/crazy ideas and innovations because teams like GFR have proven you can dominate without them. Start by analyzing the rules, use a simple lapsim to develop your concept (which everyone can do now thanks to OptimumG, you don't even need to program your own), then build your concept and refine it year by year with a methodical design-test-validate process. Small refinements are the key, because once you are in the ballpark with a good vehicle concept you have a lot more to lose by taking on a risky new design than you have to gain. Only having 1 year (usually only 1 or 2 competitions) for your car to compete really discourages taking risks with new ideas. Getting a car built on schedule, getting it well tested and set up, and using your free time to prepare for static events can almost guarantee you a top 10 result, so any new idea that might slow down the design/manufacturing process is seen as not worth it by most teams.

[AxelRipper]

For those people who will occasionally say that the FSAE rule book isn't too long:

Let me bring in another SAE Competition: The Clean Snowmobile Challenge. Internal combustion (yes, there is an electric side, but I shall leave that out for now) rules can be found here: http://www.sae.org/domains/stu...les/2013rules-ic.pdf (http://www.sae.org/domains/students/competitions/snowmobile/rules/2013rules-ic.pdf)

Vehicle technical rules length? 8 pages.

Why is this? Well, the prime rules are that you must start with a stock snowmobile produced in the last 6 years, there is a limit to the amount of stuff you can do to the chassis, and you have to be under 130 hp (Tested on their dynamometer during the lab emissions test). There is also 100 points to be gained if you don't have to work on your sled all week (they seal the bodywork, and if you have to cut that for anything non-test related, 100 points gone). Thats the gist of it. What this leads to is one of the most interesting competitions I've ever seen engine wise. Last year there were 12 IC teams. Of those there were:

2 diesels
2 600cc DI 2-strokes (one modified stock, one custom)
1 800cc 2-stroke (modified stock)
1 660cc turbo 4-stroke
2 each of 750cc turbo, 500cc turbo, and 600cc N/A 4-strokes

The rules are controlled in that there is one major rule change per year that is set up for discussion at a luncheon held for all the teams during the week. This year's IC rule change was the switching from a random blend from E10-E40 to E40-E85, as well as the availability of a tune-selection switch. Really, you'd think the stress on reliability would limit the amount of ingenuity in the snowmobiles, but it hasn't.

Now, if you combine this with the Baja rules you bring in 28 pages just for the chassis and suspension (keep in mind, they're the opposite of CSC: Spec engine and all chassis), you would get a 37 page technical portion to the rules. If you want to bring in the Zero Emission Snowmobile rules? That brings us to a grand total of 44 pages

Shall we look at the FSAE rule book now?
Chassis technical regulations: 45 pages
Alternative frame rules: 5 pages
IC engine rules: 7 pages
EV rules: 20 pages.

So the FSAE chassis rules are longer than the combined technical regulations of 3 other SAE series.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go finish mounting a catalyst to our turbo Miller cycle snowmobile and make some rear suspension tabs.

[Frank]

Z,

You and I are going to pair up in scrutinizing formula SAE this year?

Frank

[Tim.Wright]

Z, if you actually get around to designing and building a car instead of telling everyone else how to do theirs, you will appreciate why people go down that path they do.

[Charles Kaneb]

The main thing that encourages convergence is that the benefits of a successful, unconventional design are small compared to the costs of an unsuccessful, unconventional design - or even compared to the cost of an unsuccessful, conventional design!

If a top-five-at-West team (top-ten-at-Michigan?) were to have a serious off-year in terms of vehicle development and design, and brought an easier-to-make 2012 car with minimal mods to be legal this year, and it "didn't handle quite as well as last year's car" because they had no clue about vehicle dynamics, they'd finish somewhere between 6th and 10th at FSAE West assuming they finished enduro. This unsuccessful, conventional design would look just fine in the end.

If a top-five team were to take a big risk in terms of design, and designed a radically different car around a new component that early calculations showed gave a big, big laptime benefit, they are opening themselves up to four risks.

1) The "new thing" doesn't work. It looked really great in the early simulations and calculations, but it relied on sealing some flow off that couldn't be contained when the car was on track, or the new way to control the car required impossible inputs from the driver, or the radical new engine had a strange, time-dependent powerband. In this case, the team gets to choose what to bring to competition. A vicious, nearly undriveable car that doesn't go very fast, or a hastily-converted-to-conventional-technology car that looks dreadful and doesn't go very fast.

2) The "new thing" does work, but to make it work, the doohickey has to be significantly different from originally intended. It ends up way bigger or way smaller than the device the rest of the car was designed around, and the team gets to hack up a lot of the car and build a lot of parts that are seriously compromised from their original dimensions and design intent. The new device does what it's supposed to, so the fairly lousy car goes faster than it otherwise would, but everyone's left wondering whether they'd have gotten more for all their late nights if they'd gone conventional. In addition, the old car's still around and it had more track time, more optimization, and on a bad day it's faster than the new car. Next year's car should be a lot better due to the new knowledge - if that knowledge is passed down appropriately and the guys arguing in favor of continuing the "new thing"'s development keep them on that path.

3) The "new thing" works as intended. The car absolutely flies as soon as the early bugs are worked out. Long days at the test track are followed by short nights at the shop, because everything's holding up. It passes "mock tech" at home and the rules clarification for the "new thing" came back with "make sure it doesn't fail in these ways or interfere with this". The team gets to competition, and a scrutineer discovers a new problem with some related component that the rules clarification didn't cover, or decides that some "minor" modification has to be made that the team isn't going to get to test... Take it off or pack up.

4) The "new thing" works as in 3. During one of the dynamic events, the driver hits some debris, and a tire blows. The car completes spectacular, photogenic rotations around the pitch and roll axes, and the driver gets some cuts and bruises. The increased speed from the "new thing" gets blamed for the spectacular wreck... never mind that conventional FSAE cars going conventional speeds have done exactly that (Texas A&M -05 car, Texas Autocross Weekend).

While it is possible that a "game-breaker" car can win dominantly, it's also possible that a conceptually ordinary car, with good mechanical design, good vehicle dynamics, good fabrication, good development, and two good drivers, wins dominantly in a "weak" year.

You want new stuff? Give us even tighter turns and shorter straightaways, and when someone shows up like UWA's -11 or -12 cars (or their brilliant, spectacular -05 car that was the star of my first FSAE competition), let them run. If the rules we've developed over 25 years are any good, we've got a roll-cage that isn't going to collapse if the car goes over, a cockpit that won't cut the driver to ribbons, nothing massive to hit if something goes wrong...

By the way, "the rules might allow 999 ways to make a safety-critical system work well and 1 that doesn't, so we have to have some latitude to exclude cars that are technically legal" isn't a bad statement. You've got a responsibility to the teams, the SAE, and the general public to keep the event safe. That statement would sound a hell of a lot better if the scrutineers didn't pass dozens of cars every year with welded aluminum fuel tanks.

[Charles Kaneb]

Tobias,

I think it's difficult for all of the concerns associated with a new design to be addressed in a rules-clarification email. We had to abandon a component this year after getting a rules clarification on its legality. If we'd addressed the concerns in their response, we still had no idea what they'd have come up with in the next back-and-forth - or what they'd have come up with at competition. It takes several weeks to get a rules clarification, which is equal to an entire phase of our design cycle (conceptual design, critical/dimensional design, model integration, redesign to make it work and fit).

Z,

If you think you can build a significantly faster FSAE car that'll be legal, then please do a scale or bench test of the principle you're going to use to make it go faster. If it's a structural or suspension change, buy an old FSAE car and modify it. If it's an aerodynamic change, try it in a CFD program or push it in front of a truck down a smooth road or runway.

[Charles Kaneb]

Originally posted by Frank:
Z,

You and I are going to pair up in scrutinizing formula SAE this year?

Frank

I'll do it once I graduate.

[brettd]

Dragging this discussion back to the thread title...

Originally posted by PatClarke:
I was disappointed that the UWA team we have known and respected for many years were coming across, in some peoples eyes, as a bunch of smarta**es. That comment was actually made by someone I won't name.
If privileged people are making these kind of comments then it says a lot about some people's attitude to C&I.

On the South Dakota car, check out:
http://hardrockerracing.com/fhr/cars/2012/index.php
and then this video:
http://www.facebook.com/photo....35587&type=2&theater (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=384632824902400&set=vb.258300967535587&type=2&theater)

This is more of a question (as I haven't touched these cars or the rules in over 3 years), but from my (limited) interpretation of the text and video. The South Dakota car would've presented same issues that the rules committee had (or would have had) with the UWAM car (if it was finished of course)?

[PatClarke]

And,exactly what do you mean by that comment brettd?

Pat

[TMichaels]

If privileged people are making these kind of comments then it says a lot about some people's attitude to C&I.

I do not agree. It shows two things:
1) Officials are also humans and can be pissed off.
2) There is nothing about C&I with UWA's design. The main problem was, from my understanding, safety e.g. how the suspension loads were reacted into the chassis and therefore what the chassis was: the frame, the undertray, both? Why not ask the rules committee about it?
The design judges understanding of it is something entirely different, because we are not able to really tell why they received a low design score. Maybe they knew nothing about their car, maybe the design judges thought it was not rules compliant. Presenting an approach that may not pass Scrutineering could always harm your design scores. As said before, officials/judges are humans as well and are influenced by the outside world. (Which is by the way, why you should not wear pilot-style sunglasses and chew gum during the design event. Yes, that happened to me being a design judge and although I know it should not, it harmed their design score. But hey, that is how the real world works, too.)



On the South Dakota car, check out:
http://hardrockerracing.com/fhr/cars/2012/index.php
and then this video:
http://www.facebook.com/photo....35587&type=2&theater

This is more of a question (as I haven't touched these cars or the rules in over 3 years), but from my (limited) interpretation of the text and video. The South Dakota car would've presented same issues that the rules committee had (or would have had) with the UWAM car (if it was finished of course)?

I am only reading the rule committee discussion mails regarding suspension and structural topics with one eye due to not having much knowledge in this area, but the concern about UWA's approach was reacting suspension loads through the aerodynamic structure. South Dakota only has an unsprung aerodynamics package. These are two different designs and can not be compared.

[TMichaels]

Tobias,

I think it's difficult for all of the concerns associated with a new design to be addressed in a rules-clarification email. We had to abandon a component this year after getting a rules clarification on its legality. If we'd addressed the concerns in their response, we still had no idea what they'd have come up with in the next back-and-forth - or what they'd have come up with at competition. It takes several weeks to get a rules clarification, which is equal to an entire phase of our design cycle (conceptual design, critical/dimensional design, model integration, redesign to make it work and fit).

I know that this happens from time to time. But this problem is two-fold:
1) Complicated rules clarification questions are often missing a lot of information in the beginning, for example just asking "Would it be legal to..." instead of compiling a short document as PDF with two or three pages showing sketches/images and giving a detailed explanation of what is really planned. That way you could be receiving a sufficient answer in the first try. Instead we often have to ask for details here and there which slows the process down.
Additionally it often feels as if a team tries to get a general answer in order to fit their solution in the grey spots of the answer, just to say at the event: "But we got a positive answer regarding this and that."
This is why we usually do not give general answers, but say: Show us your specific solution and we can tell you whether it is legal or not and why or what has to be changed.
I am probably over-stressing this, but had UWA done this, the entire discussion could have been prevented.

2) Remember that you are not the only team answering complicated questions and that something new often has to be discussed in the committee, involving many different time zones and therefore intrinsic delays. Not to forget the fact that this is handled by volunteers who may be on a business trip or holidays or just very busy regular job-wise. I know this is not ideal, but that is how it is.

[Pete Marsh]

Tobias,

I think it's difficult for all of the concerns associated with a new design to be addressed in a rules-clarification email. We had to abandon a component this year after getting a rules clarification on its legality. If we'd addressed the concerns in their response, we still had no idea what they'd have come up with in the next back-and-forth - or what they'd have come up with at competition. It takes several weeks to get a rules clarification, which is equal to an entire phase of our design cycle (conceptual design, critical/dimensional design, model integration, redesign to make it work and fit).

I agree with Charles 100%.

There seems to be a strong suggestion here that the rules clarification system works great and can achieve all these fantastic goals. But from a team perspective, that's not what I see. For any issue involving C+I we are talking concept level stuff. How are you going to assess safety/strength issues in a design that isn't done yet? If every team sent in a new concept every year how would the workload be managed? Are you really suggesting you want to be a sounding board for every crazy idea that comes up?

UWA gets the message we should of asked, but, we thought it was easily legal, and not in need of "clarification". ie, we know what the intention of the rule is (no go karts), and believe we have not breached that intent, not even a little bit. There are plenty of examples of cars much closer to a shifter kart that run in every event, and are even applauded as fantastic solutions. (there is no max spring rate rule!)
We never considered that a clarification might have helped the tech inspectors, but I honestly doubt it would have, except if the response was "too hard, no." There is no way I can see the rule clarification system can do this at concept level. What would the response be? "OK, but make sure the wheels don't fall off". Doesn't that apply to every design?

At the comp, the talk was ALL about the legality from a performance/no go karts perspective. The issue was "this was not allowed in F1, so what would make you think you could bring it here?", "The FIA has ruled on this and it not allowed.", "you are trying to build a go kart, and it will not be permitted!"
Well, the rules in F1 are different, and it DOES have suspension, more in fact than most FSAE cars. The design goals had nothing to do with go karts, everything to do with dynamic camber control and soft warp mode.
We spent a couple of hours, with pencil sketches and the actual car, with Claude before he could see what we had done and how it worked. I don't think a 2 or 3 page PDF rule clarification request would have been effective.

No issues were raised with me, the TD or VD lead about the strength of the system, and how the wheels were held on. In any event, you are ALLOWED to build a wishbone car with wheels that fall off, and there are good and appropriate controls in place to manage that risk. Why suddenly is everyone so concerned? Because it looks different.

I don't see the current system is capable of dealing with these issues if you are honestly in favour encouraging of C + I. No team can spend 2 to 3 months having their concepts rule compliance checked. Even if the scheduled allowed for this, the "lets clone that" group would win out over the doubt and uncertainty created.

The reality is, the decision to do something different will make you uncompetitive for at least a year or two, and with high member turnover, it is big of those individuals to give up on any chance of personal success for the benefit in the long run, maybe, or maybe be responsible for a complete disaster.
It is much easier to wait and see what works, then copy it.
eg RMIT with the single, Monash with wings etc. Now, everyone is doing it. "oh look, it does work after all..."

If you think FS/FSAE currently rewards and encourages C+I, you are kidding yourself. "Allows" C+I is more accurate.
If you think the project management, task completion, and skills lessons are MORE important, I agree, but C+I would be nice as well.

Pete

[Max Trenkle]

There is some good discussion going on here.

But this is what keeps coming at me"

"Wah Wah Wah, FSAE is hard, why can't the rules be easier, better, shorter, easier to understand, etc? Why can't the rules committee answer our questions faster? Why do we even have to ask? We should just be able to do whatever we want!"

and from Z

"FSAE isn't that hard, you're just making it harder than it really is."

I think a simple solution would be to take out the clause that says the FSAE judges can basically do whatever they want.

"A3.6 Violations on Intent
The violation of intent of a rule will be considered a violation of the rule itself."

To me this is total bullcrap. If there's a loophole, and a team uses the loophole, the team can still get disqualified for dynamics events because the judges "say so." If a team designs something that is not defined in the rules, but passes safety, then they should run, and you should figure out whether it's legal or not after comp. That's how the rest of the world does it.

"WHAT ABOUT SAFETY!?!"

If you don't think it's safe, then don't let it run. That's build into the rules WITHOUT the "We can ban whatever we want for whatever reason" clause.

[Racer-X]

Max,

I agree with you that it is a bit of a downer that the officials can claim illegality based on the spirit of a rule. At the same time how many rules are there that aren't concerned with safety? We don't have rules to limit cost, or aero, or weight and so on. Along with that we have very few rules that dictate how entire systems are designed like most series with spec chassis etc., so judges are bound to see all kinds of strange crap. Aside from eligibility, wheelbase, bodywork and what constitutes a "formula car" rules I can't think of any rules to "cheat" that wouldn't make a car "unsafe". In this series and really our culture in general unsafe = antichrist.

To fuel the fire what do people think about allowing full bodywork? We would get some really interesting designs going then, maybe even some mini GTP cars...

EDIT: Now that I think about it there are a fair amount of silly non safety related rules that I think should be removed. In something like this why should we be forced to conform to a specific style of race car?

[BeunMan]

Originally posted by Racer-X:
...

EDIT: Now that I think about it there are a fair amount of silly non safety related rules that I think should be removed. In something like this why should we be forced to conform to a specific style of race car?

Cost? Simplicity? Reduced load on scrutineers?

[Markus]

"Will this car cause a rules change? Have the judges learned something new? On rare occasions, creative or innovative design may merit special points."

That's a quote from the official FSAE Design Score Sheet. I see that as encouragement for C&I. I see that as an area where UWA currently is. I see that as an important part of this discussion. Should it be changed to:

"Did this car violate the intention of a rule? Was it allowed to run? On rare occasions, creative or innovative design may merit special point deductions."

This post is intentionally provocative, and if it feels personal to somebody then take a deep breath and think about what it tries to say.

[Canuck Racing]

You bring up some interesting points Axel.


Originally posted by AxelRipper:
For those people who will occasionally say that the FSAE rule book isn't too long:

Let me bring in another SAE Competition: The Clean Snowmobile Challenge. Internal combustion (yes, there is an electric side, but I shall leave that out for now) rules can be found here: http://www.sae.org/domains/stu...les/2013rules-ic.pdf (http://www.sae.org/domains/students/competitions/snowmobile/rules/2013rules-ic.pdf)

Vehicle technical rules length? 8 pages.

...

Now, if you combine this with the Baja rules you bring in 28 pages just for the chassis and suspension (keep in mind, they're the opposite of CSC: Spec engine and all chassis), you would get a 37 page technical portion to the rules. If you want to bring in the Zero Emission Snowmobile rules? That brings us to a grand total of 44 pages

Shall we look at the FSAE rule book now?
Chassis technical regulations: 45 pages
Alternative frame rules: 5 pages
IC engine rules: 7 pages
EV rules: 20 pages.

...

The biggest difference though between rule sets is how many vehicles need to be inspected, and how they go about it. CSC might have 20 sleds in a busy year, which are all teched by about 6 guys in two groups and they spend most of their time looking for things that could be dangerous, not silly rule infractions. And the last part of inspection is a professional or semi-professional rider taking your sled out for a not-so-nice thrashing. If a semi-professional driver (we'd need about 5 of them actually...) took out each formula car for a few laps as the last bit of tech inspection, you can only imagine the consequences, not to mention you'd knock out noise, brake, tilt and could add a very interesting facet to design! You wouldn't even show up to tech without a running car, and you'd probably know what is going to break in endurance by the end of day one.

Secondly, let's say I build a typical steel/IC formula car. That's 52 pages. I guarantee that there is more than 8 pages of redundant, unenforced, and obsolete rules in the FSAE rules, but the rules committee does nothing about it and won't consider removing them. "We're volunteers" they complain. "They're there for a reason [we just don't know it, or because they've always been there,] they say. And when you try to fix it for them or help you're given the cold shoulder since "they've been doing this longer and they know best."

Examples:
Why does a nose cone that could contact someone need a 1.5" radius while wings only need a .060?
Why is there half a page explaining heat transfer? T4.3.2
Why do you need a minimum wheel base, %track width, tilt table, and a "at design judges discretion" clause to make it clear rollovers are discouraged?
Why is there a minimum size for the headrest as well as requirements for helmet clearance to it for every driver?
Why don't you have to have a front jacking bar?
And lastly, my personal favorite, why are the only two points that connect the right and left hand side of your chassis the roll hoops? You could probably crash a current FSAE car head-on into a light post at 50kph and walk away with some nasty bruises and a sore neck but skid into it sideways and the whole thing will collapse around you!

[Moke]

Correct me if I'm wrong Pat, but the UWA car was stopped from running, from the pics I've seen, because it had no drive line, dampers had no where to mount, etc, not because it was too creative and innovative.

Just like our 2005 car was stopped from running, not because was had tilted the engine backward, had a supercharger, callipers integrated into uprights, it was because we had 2 pages of things that needed fixing.

Summing up:

The UWA car didn't run because it couldn't.

[AxelRipper]

Originally posted by Canuck Racing:


Examples:
Why does a nose cone that could contact someone need a 1.5" radius while wings only need a .060?
Why is there half a page explaining heat transfer? T4.3.2
Why do you need a minimum wheel base, %track width, tilt table, and a "at design judges discretion" clause to make it clear rollovers are discouraged?
Why is there a minimum size for the headrest as well as requirements for helmet clearance to it for every driver?
Why don't you have to have a front jacking bar?
And lastly, my personal favorite, why are the only two points that connect the right and left hand side of your chassis the roll hoops? You could probably crash a current FSAE car head-on into a light post at 50kph and walk away with some nasty bruises and a sore neck but skid into it sideways and the whole thing will collapse around you!

Thats exactly what I'm talking about. Why do we have to have a bar that can be actuated by a quick jack? When was the last time a quick jack was used by the course workers at competition? When our front brakes locked up at Cali 2011, they loaded the front end onto a couple caster carts and rolled it off. Most of the time it is just pushed off the course by means of whatever is most convenient to push off of (so we need a pushbar..... why?). One more to point out (that we may have mentioned in tech for the past few years) is the broomstick rule. It made sense pre-template, but if you look at any car made post-2009, the first things to hit for the most part are the main hoop and front bulkhead were it to roll over.

However, with the length thing, yes the CSC has a low turnout, but what about Baja? They have 100 teams registered for (each of their three) competitions as well, but they seem to have no problem getting them through tech with a much shorter rule book, and there is a lot higher chance (guarantee?) that they're going to hit something/someone in the course of the competition.

[jlangholzj]

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


Examples:
Why does a nose cone that could contact someone need a 1.5" radius while wings only need a .060?
Why is there half a page explaining heat transfer? T4.3.2
Why do you need a minimum wheel base, %track width, tilt table, and a "at design judges discretion" clause to make it clear rollovers are discouraged?
Why is there a minimum size for the headrest as well as requirements for helmet clearance to it for every driver?
Why don't you have to have a front jacking bar?
And lastly, my personal favorite, why are the only two points that connect the right and left hand side of your chassis the roll hoops? You could probably crash a current FSAE car head-on into a light post at 50kph and walk away with some nasty bruises and a sore neck but skid into it sideways and the whole thing will collapse around you!

Thats exactly what I'm talking about. Why do we have to have a bar that can be actuated by a quick jack? When was the last time a quick jack was used by the course workers at competition? When our front brakes locked up at Cali 2011, they loaded the front end onto a couple caster carts and rolled it off. Most of the time it is just pushed off the course by means of whatever is most convenient to push off of (so we need a pushbar..... why?). One more to point out (that we may have mentioned in tech for the past few years) is the broomstick rule. It made sense pre-template, but if you look at any car made post-2009, the first things to hit for the most part are the main hoop and front bulkhead were it to roll over.

However, with the length thing, yes the CSC has a low turnout, but what about Baja? They have 100 teams registered for (each of their three) competitions as well, but they seem to have no problem getting them through tech with a much shorter rule book, and there is a lot higher chance (guarantee?) that they're going to hit something/someone in the course of the competition. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Couple of these, I agree with.....the jacking bar, I've never seen one used. I find the wings vs nose funny as well and the extensive explanation of heat xfr is a tad bit over the top.

However.....were it not for some of these rules you KNOW that people would be pushing the boundaries and would be making potentially unsafe cars. Side impact tubes are there for a reason. I can think of a couple ways where the drivers head would be outside of the broomstick AND would it not be for minimum wheelbases and track-widths, there's the potential to make some pretty squirley vehicles.

We do have to remember that none of us are professionals. You think the guys building F1 chassis are new to the game? fat chance. They've had at least a good ten years below someone else to get there. A lot of the rules are there not only to keep us safe but in some cases to keep the people RUNNING the event safe. Its like the warning label on the barrel of my shotgun: "Pointing at objects may cause serious harm or death" REALLY??!?! who the HELL required that to be put on? But if there's a rule explaining why you can't do that, the wonderful people that allow us to compete can keep allowing us to without being sued for every penny they own.

[Bemo]

Originally posted by Canuck Racing:
Why do you need a minimum wheel base, %track width, tilt table, and a "at design judges discretion" clause to make it clear rollovers are discouraged?
Why is there a minimum size for the headrest as well as requirements for helmet clearance to it for every driver?

No offense, but obviously you just don't understand some things. First of all there is no minimal track width. You just have to past tilt. This makes much more sense than having a minimum track width as it depends on height of CoG and track width how likely a car will flip. What exactly is your suggestion? Just removing the tilt test? To my experience there are almost no teams with trouble not to flip the car during tilt but quite a lot have trouble not to lose fluids, mainly fuel out of the filler neck. But according to your post it is no problem if a car just spills some fuel around the track.

The reason for the minimum headrest size is the fault of the teams themselves. For some time now there wasn't a minimum size, but the helmet had to hit it in a certain distance from all edges of it. This allowed very small headrests. But then teams should up to dynamics with smaller drivers and (surprisingly) they didn't fulfill this rule anymore. And then the wining starts if you complain about it as a scrutineer...

I highly recommend you really think about your attitude towards officials. I can't believe the arrogance in your post. If you really think it is all so easy and all problems are caused by others stupidity than just one question: Have you ever been involved in organising such an event? If not, why not? It is very easy to complain about the ignorance of officials on this forum, but it won't help anybody. If you think things should be changed - go ahead! Change them!!!

[Canuck Racing]

No offense, but obviously you just don't understand some things. First of all there is no minimal track width. You just have to past tilt. This makes much more sense than having a minimum track width as it depends on height of CoG and track width how likely a car will flip. What exactly is your suggestion? Just removing the tilt test? To my experience there are almost no teams with trouble not to flip the car during tilt but quite a lot have trouble not to lose fluids, mainly fuel out of the filler neck. But according to your post it is no problem if a car just spills some fuel around the track.

The reason for the minimum headrest size is the fault of the teams themselves. For some time now there wasn't a minimum size, but the helmet had to hit it in a certain distance from all edges of it. This allowed very small headrests. But then teams should up to dynamics with smaller drivers and (surprisingly) they didn't fulfill this rule anymore. And then the wining starts if you complain about it as a scrutineer...

I highly recommend you really think about your attitude towards officials. I can't believe the arrogance in your post. If you really think it is all so easy and all problems are caused by others stupidity than just one question: Have you ever been involved in organising such an event? If not, why not? It is very easy to complain about the ignorance of officials on this forum, but it won't help anybody. If you think things should be changed - go ahead! Change them!!!

No offense, but you obviously didn't read my post in that I said there should no be % (percent) track width requirement, or no tilt, or no wheelbase, etc... They are redundant that was the entire point. I never said anything about removing the tilt test.

I'm well aware that the headrest size was added this year as a result of teams inability to meet the current rules. But if teams showed up with a bigger driver and didn't clear the broomstick (Helsinki anyone?) would they be allowed to race? No. They'd be sent to fix it. The rule wouldn't be changed next year.

And lastly Bemo, while I'm not exactly an "official," I've done tech the past few years at MIS and been involved with FSAE for around 7 years now, including direct contact with multiple officials.

I can only hope I get the Stuttgart car in my bay this year! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I kid of course.

[Markus]

Yes, we Helsinki guys have grown an insatiable love for head rests... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Did you see our special extension at MIS 2012 (same driver as 2008)?

Regarding all this talk about safety, I've witnessed that rule T10.1.d isn't really enforced that well, at least in Europe. There's been many instances of teams mounting the gas tank next to the differential.

Or maybe differential is not considered to be a rotating equipment. Who knows.

[PatClarke]

For those who don't know what a 'Lotus 88' was and what the brouhaha was all about.

http://www.grandprix.com/ft/ftpw021.html

Pat

[Tom Wettenhall]

Just to break briefly from the discussion about rules and back on the UWA machine:

How is the roll stiffness distribution managed? I don't remember my look at the thing too well, but I don't recall any provision to change the mechanical balance?

Going back a ways, who says an FSAE car can't outrun a go-kart? We're competitive on power, we out-tyre them, out-brake them, out-grip them with our fancy independent suspension and we have five more gears. We'd bury a go-kart.

[GSpeedR]

Weight (and driver-adjustable ballast).

It seems you've never been to a (non-FSAE) autocross event and watched FSAE cars get buried by karts.

[rrobb]

Pretty sure that the UWA car has a center mounted single U-bar style anti-sway bar that you could just change the position of where it was connected to the beam connector/undertray.

Seems like something that could work much better than a traditional layout.

I'd say that that might even be one of it's main advantages.

Adjusting LLTD would have no effect on any of the other suspension modes.

[Z]

Originally posted by rrobb:
Pretty sure that the UWA car has a center mounted single U-bar style anti-sway bar that you could just change the position of where it was connected to the beam connector/undertray.

Seems like something that could work much better than a traditional layout.

I'd say that that might even be one of it's main advantages.

Adjusting LLTD would have no effect on any of the other suspension modes.
rrobb,

Correct, and well done!!! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Progress is being made. Now I wonder when Claude will start including the above in his seminars?

Z

[Markus]

Originally posted by Tom Wettenhall:
Going back a ways, who says an FSAE car can't outrun a go-kart? We're competitive on power, we out-tyre them, out-brake them, out-grip them with our fancy independent suspension and we have five more gears. We'd bury a go-kart.
You have 11 gears?! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

[MCoach]

Originally posted by Markus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tom Wettenhall:
Going back a ways, who says an FSAE car can't outrun a go-kart? We're competitive on power, we out-tyre them, out-brake them, out-grip them with our fancy independent suspension and we have five more gears. We'd bury a go-kart.
You have 11 gears?! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe he is referring to the CVT / centrifugal clutch single gear go karts that are commonly seen in indoor go kart tracks. While everyone else has in mind 5-6 gear shifter karts.

[Dunk Mckay]

Karts are smaller, lighter and nimbler than FSAE cars, and driven well tend to caryy more speed through the tighter corners. FSUK used to run on a kart track at Bruntingthorpe, and I'm told kart times would have been equal or even slightly quicker, 2nd hand info and long before my time tho, before good aero as well.
I suspect a good, nimble aero car would be quicker than any normal kart, but not by much.

[MCoach]

To give a bit of insight, karts are very nimble due to quite a few features. One of them is overall size.

What becomes a double hairpin to a car, becomes a chicane to a formula car. This goes further; what is a chicane to a formula car is a straightaway for a kart. A lot of speed is carried through what are usually very low speed areas for larger vehicles.

[Markus]

I'd say the formulas might be on part with KZ2's, and even that will be a tight battle.

Then there's the superkarts...

PS. Tom, have you ever driven a kart with front brakes? Talk about outbraking a kart then... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Big Bird]

Dear all,

I would like to advise that after much examination of the existing rules, and the definitions of terms contained therein, that the FSAE-A Rules Committee has found that the vehicle concept presented by UWA in 2012 does not contravene the FSAE-A rules as they are presently written. Therefore, such a concept if presented at the FSAE-A 2013 event, would be eligible to compete.

This information has been forwarded to the UWA team.

Please note that any vehicle presented with such a suspension concept would still need to pass technical inspection. The scrutineers would still need to be satisfied that the vehicle presented was engineered appropriately to withstand the rigours of FSAE competition. This requirement stands irrespective of vehicle design concept.

Cheers all,

Geoff

[mech5496]

Well that was a long anticipated answer, and to my relief the one I was hoping for. Thanks for letting us know Geoff.

[Owen Thomas]

I think we're all happy to hear that the folks at UWA will have the option to develop thier concept. I also think we would all like to know what the specific "make it or break it" argument was from the rules perspective, and if there will be an amendment for 2014. Guess we'll have to wait and see...

What effect does this ruling have on other competition regions? Presumably there is no official worldwide standing, but will the findings from the Australian comittee find thier way to North America or Europe?

[Big Bird]

"....after much examination of the existing rules, and the definitions of terms contained therein, that the FSAE-A Rules Committee has found that the vehicle concept presented by UWA in 2012 does not contravene the FSAE-A rules as they are presently written."

G'day Owen,

The above is the best way I can think of to express the "make or break" argument. I hope you can all understand the gist of it.

Can't say whether or not there will be amendments in later years, and I certainly will not speak for other countries, or SAE-I in particular. But for the current year, and for the Australian comp at least, the UWA concept has been deemed not illegal.

Kind regards to all,

[Z]

Originally posted by Big Bird:
... the UWA concept has been deemed not illegal.
Geoff,

Well, it seems that the original question has been answered with a double negative. For now, I take that as a positive. Well done! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
~~~~~o0o~~~~~

But still ... SO MANY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS.
=======================================
Page 1.
======
* Why did Pat describe the OP Charles' polite and reasonable question as "inflamatory" and "inaccurate and opinionated"?
* Why does Pat keep pretending that "UWA's wheel pants were not 'banned'! The team chose to remove them rather than modify them slightly to meet the scrutineers requirements."?
* Why so, given that the UWA 2011 car had passed scrutineering, and the team were later told they could not compete unless they removed the wheel pods?
* What is the difference between being "banned", and not being allowed to compete???

* Why is it that conventional cars can breeze through scrutineering, then later have their wheels fall off with no Official batting an eyelid, yet a slightly unconventional car is deemed a risk in scrutineering because "its wheels might fall off"?
* Why do some Officials actually encourage Teams to build cars with wishbones so fragile that their wheels keep falling off?

* Will Pat ever publicly state his position regarding "CREATIVITY and IMAGINATION"?
* Well, Pat, ARE YOU FOR IT, OR AGAINST IT???

Page 2.
======
* Will Frank and I "pair up in scrutinizing formula SAE this year"?
* If so, then on which side of "the fence" do I have to stand?
* Can I work as a scrutineer, and still be on the students' side of "the fence"?
* Or is the purpose of "the fence" to separate The Great & Good Officials from The Great Unwashed (err, the students)?
* Who built "the bloody fence" in the first place???

* Why is Tim Wright too lazy to do his homework?

* Why is Charles too lazy to "try it in CFD", and wants me to do it for him?
* Do I have any, err..., of those, ummmm..., Crayons For Drawing???

* Why is Tobias, an Official, "not able to really tell why [UWA] received a low design score."?
* Will anybody else ever find out why they received only 3 points from 200 for Design?
* How (!) can Tobias suggest that "Maybe they knew nothing about their car"???
* What else should you NOT do, other than "wear pilot-style sunglasses and chew gum", if you do not want to lose points in Design?

* Why do so many Officials go on about FSAE being an educational competition, and NOT motorsport, yet their argument regarding UWA's legality was that "this was not allowed in F1" and "The FIA has ruled on this and it is not allowed."?
* Do said Officials understand "hypocrisy"?
* How could the UWA concept have been "clarified by an email to the Rules committee" when they "spent a couple of hours, with pencil sketches and the actual car, with Claude before he could see ... how it worked.?
* Does Claude finally, and in fact, understand how it works?
* Will Claude include such concepts in his future seminars?
* Given that I have asked this question several times, will Claude ever answer?
* Was Pete Marsh right when he said "If you think FS/FSAE currently rewards and encourages C+I, you are kidding yourself."?

Page 3 (deep breath, almost there).
========================
* Why, as Canuck Racing asks, "does a nose cone that could contact someone need a 1.5" radius while wings only need a .060"?
* And why, indeed, are there "[many] pages of redundant, unenforced, and obsolete rules in the FSAE rules, but the rules committee does nothing about it and won't consider removing them."?
* Is it really because "they know best"?

* Why is the first reaction from many Officials to any sort of criticism, to ask "Have you ever been involved in organising such an event?"?
* Do the current Officials really think that they are the first and only people who have ever done this sort of thing?
* And do they really believe that current FSAE is totally flawless, and so is above any sort of criticism at all?
* Is it possible to improve anything, without first applying some critical thought?

* Are karts really faster than FSAE cars?
* If it is a close thing, then why are FSAE cars SO MUCH MORE COMPLICATED http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, for next to no performance advantage?

Page 4.
======
And, finally, from Big Bird again, "the vehicle concept presented by UWA in 2012 does not contravene the FSAE-A rules as they are presently written."

* Is that a loophole there, that will be exploited by the anti-C&I Officials?
* Are there currently moves afoot to rewrite the Rules and outlaw C&I, possibly by using some nonsensical excuse of "it is a Design competition, not Motorsport.." (see other thread)?
* Are you students worried by this?
* If not, then which would you prefer, "Formula Sewing Machine", or "Formula Cement Mixer"? http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Z

[rrobb]

*How many potential engineers will see all this stuff and say:

"F@#$ that! I'd rather be an accountant."?

[Owen Thomas]

*How many potential engineers will see all this stuff and say:

"F@#$ that! I'd rather be an accountant."?
Just the ones we don't want as engineers in the first place http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Z,

I will start off by saying that on many fronts, I do agree with your sentiments. Mostly that the rules and judging should be more transparent, so that Big Geoff here does not have to use cryptic phrases to communicate the ruling. Still, he did post it here for us to see, and I appreciate the gesture. We SHOULD be able to know if a major rule change is coming, and we SHOULD know the reason behind it. I sincerely hope something like that would be announced before the next rules draft is released.

Back to the transparency issue; I believe they are taking steps to make it better (releasing cost reports, written design feedback, etc). However, the reality is that there is an inherent amount of inconsistency in judging/scoring. The scoring structure is controlled with rubrics and points breakdowns and specific penalties (all released to students), but different people will always have different views. That's just how the real world works, and it's a part of the competition. This is "imperfect" from a logical standpoint, but it is not actually a bad thing. It just is.

I would also like to add that from my experience, "the fence" does not really exist. Most scrutineers I talk to are Formula alumni, and also super rad.

On to the disagreements, then. I understand why you would be apprehensive of the officials (Pat and Claude in particular, it seems) for some of the things they have said, but how can you impart judgement without knowing the whole situation? I'm not saying that "since you've never done this blah blah blah you can't provide feedback", because I believe outside feedback is important, but it often looks to me like you jump ahead to a conclusion based on your own biases. This is interesting, because it is exactly what you call out the judges for.

For example, you pick apart Claude for the incomplete statement from a UWA student about how they explained thier design to him. I say incomplete because the objective of the conversation they had was not mentioned. Did it take 3 hours for him to understand how it worked, or to understand why they did it? I have a feeling it was the latter, but after stating what I just did, I will not pass judgement. Especially since I do not know the entire scenario.

Furthermore, Pat has mentioned several times where his (and maybe the "official") stance is on C&I. It is encouraged as long as no rules are violated, since the rules are implemented for safety. This may seem like a mystery, but it is literal and direct. The real problem here is not his opinion on the matter, but that pesky statement about the "intention of the rules". It is indeed quite frustrating, but in my opinion totally understandable. These cars must be safe. No one would ever argue that statement. How can you be sure something is safe if it is radically different from what you've seen before? You think people were lining up to jump out of a plane when the parachute was being tested? The point is, the officials are not willing to take the chance that a competitor or volunteer could be hurt. We accept this for what it is, and can deal with the downsides. We should, like I mentioned, be able to know how and why something has been deemed unsafe.

Work needs to be done to simplify the rules, and I think everyone recognizes this, but is is quite the daunting task. Of course other improvements can be made which require less effort, but then there will probably be more problems. Not trying to say it is a futile effort, but no matter what gets done someone will disagree. I have faith that "they" are making the competition better, and not just adding complications and filling loopholes.

TL;DR: You're right, we need more transparency, but you're also disconnected. Relax bro, all is well.

P.S. I cast my ballot for Formula cement mixer. It's easier to make and small scale ones could cool and mix beverages. For after the competition, of course.

[Charles Kaneb]

Z,

My team is currently building a car with several new risky changes. Many of those were my ideas. We'll test them and if they work you'll see them at Lincoln. I don't have the time or facilities to test yours as well; we've already left out a bunch of ideas we thought would work in the fall.

-Charles

[Dunk Mckay]

Originally posted by rrobb:
*How many potential engineers will see all this stuff and say:

"F@#$ that! I'd rather be an accountant."?
Two of my flat mates did Formula and then made that decision. :P

Good to see we've got a clear answer. Although it's not entirely confidence inspiring for next year, not just yet.

[Max Trenkle]

It's hard out there for critical thinkers http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I understand designing something to break so that something more vital doesn't... but since we are on a track with low (if any) barriers, why in the world we encourage parts to come off of the car in the event of an "accident"? The Rules need to reflect the competition environment, not what other competitions are like.

If you design your A-arms to break off before the dampers are damaged, shouldn't the rules say that there should be something that can still tether the upright/wheel assembly to the rest of the vehicle?

Regardless of whether the A-arms (whatever you use to attach the wheel to the frame) are designed to break off or not... there should still be something there to prevent it from flying off like they do in NASCAR or F1.

Anyway, we just have to keep drilling the organizers of this event when we see holes, or injustices, and it needs to be encouraged that the rules are challenged. This "spirit of the rules" thing really denies accountability of the Rules committee and judges to actually have to consider counter arguments against their decisions. The good engineering practice clause is PLENTY to be able to disqualify a car that might meet rules but is clearly unsafe.

[Markus]

Max, you might want to take into account that some teams also design the car for their testing environment, especially regarding safety. I understand some teams don't give a flying eff about safety, we're college students after all, but some of us really do.

Steel a-arms are of especial danger for the driver in case of an accident, and I've understood you can find something about that in the etymology of "A-arm". This was part of the discussion where Z made up his deliberate misundestood clause of "* Why do some Officials actually encourage Teams to build cars with wishbones so fragile that their wheels keep falling off?".

On a side note, I find Z's ramblings amusing. A person that deliberately misunderstands and doesn't listen is complaining that he/(she?) isn't understood or listened. I guess you reap what you sow...

In the other hand it's sad, as there is a lot of good thinking and clever ideas drowned in the tear's of a crying six-year old.

[jlangholzj]

Originally posted by Owen Thomas:
P.S. I cast my ballot for Formula cement mixer. It's easier to make and small scale ones could cool and mix beverages. For after the competition, of course.

Owen if you make it to our neck of the woods before comp we may just need to try that one out....Although I think it would turn into kind of a racing bar stools type approach....we'd somehow manage to slap a fuel injected R6r onto it and watch that sum-bitch spin....could have your martini shaken AND stirred.

[Owen Thomas]

we'd somehow manage to slap a fuel injected R6r onto it and watch that sum-bitch spin....could have your martini shaken AND stirred.

Well now I'm just picturing the V8 blender (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDlMLqdvHzI). Shaken and stirred indeed...

[Xfsae]

Where can i find photos of the UWA car ?

[tromoly]

Pulled from the FSAE-A facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.256889624440660.61213.223272531135703&type=3

[Xfsae]

Tromoly thank you

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=256868357776120&set=pb.223272531135703.-2207520000.1383104927.&type=3&src=https%3A%2F%2Ffbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net%2Fhphotos-ak-prn1%2F466291_256868357776120_269616963_o.jpg&smallsrc=https%3A%2F%2Ffbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net%2Fhphotos-ak-frc3%2F523800_256868357776120_269616963_n.jpg&size=2048%2C1366

Is that a spherical bearing housing?

[Xfsae]

I guess what we see is a combination of a tow bar and W spring made from mild steel? Is it heat treated? (doesnt matter?)

[Xfsae]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=256868474442775&set=pb.223272531135703.-2207520000.1383104927.&type=3&src=https%3A%2F%2Ffbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net%2Fhphotos-ak-frc3%2F411636_256868474442775_2136633449_o.jpg&smallsrc=https%3A%2F%2Ffbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net%2Fhphotos-ak-frc3%2F522466_256868474442775_2136633449_n.jpg&size=2048%2C1366

what was the manufacturing method for these gears ? (esp the crown) EDM?

[Xfsae]

also UWAM team why did you choose to run a full fabricated beam passing under the main chassis in front and not mount the wheel in a similar way to the rear - with one less lower mounting point to allow steer (maybe with a top brace running through the cabin over the drivers feet )? The fabricated beam seems to limit the design of the undertray and size of tunnels - please dont take any of my comment as criticizing like a judge or know it all - i just imagine now that i am with you and thinking of ways to improve it

You have my respect for trying it

[Pete Marsh]

Yes the concept causes issues with it's low section height, and tunnels vs beam vs chassis and is LTI. (Less than ideal)

You are probably not aware of a FSAE rule requiring a cockpit leg bay template that reserves a large volume for the drivers legs. And also another rule disallowing any mechanical parts (except wing mounts) ahead of the chassis front bulk head.

We have looked (a lot) at the beam going in front of, or over the leg bay, but they have not got up

In front- bulk head rule + wheel base/CoM targets would need a side winder like Deakin Uni's. But This is how to you would do a larger car that probably has feet vs front wheel rules anyway.

Over the top - Actually over and under for super deep section. No one likes the looks.

Pete

[Xfsae]

Pete i am sure UWA has a lot of reasoning behind the way you do things . For the top brace passing through the cockpit i was thinking something like a reverse motocross steering bar shape to clear the bulky templates of FSAE at the end of this rod the spherical bearings or even oversized rod ends ( to resist bending) and direct attachment to the upright . This reverse motorcycle bar style tube is attached to the undertray longitudinally (front to rear) - in this way you could probably attach the front lower hub spericals directly to the undertray (without a brace passing under the main chassis) - in a similar fashion to what you did in the rear . Hope it makes sense .

[Xfsae]

Also

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...ze=2048%2C1366

Is that a spherical bearing housing?

I guess what we see is a combination of a tow bar and W spring made from mild steel? Is it heat treated? (doesnt matter?)

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...ze=2048%2C1366

what was the manufacturing method for these gears ? (esp the crown bevel) EDM?

Thanks - UWA rules form the Qinetiq suspension cars to this last one

[Pete Marsh]

Yes there is a spherical bearing in the centre point of the M spring (W if you like). This joint defines the roll centre, and hence the requirement for structure under the chassis at a suitable height for a front roll centre.

Re front beam - There is also a 3mm gap in the body work rule that makes moving parts going through it difficult, and despite 100's of coilover and rocker cars ignoring it, I can assure you UWA would not be allowed to. Your preaching to the converted with the high front beam, makes the steering all so easy as well.

I don't know about a tow bar? The M spring provides Lat and Long location of the sprung chassis as well as the pitch and heave spring rate.

Yes these are steel, 4130, and yes heat treated. The original concept is for these parts to be a composite, and in time they will be.

Yes gears have been both EDM and machined. Machined are better but much more expensive (for us)

It's Kinetic.

[Xfsae]

Thank you for the answers
I was just too excited with the concept i dont think i tried to preach anything
What i described was not a high front beam , was something similar to what you did in the rear adapted to the front
Agreed about the bodywork gap -also pushrods coming in from the bodywork require a gap - i am sorry to hear that you guys and gals might have a very strict treatment in scrutineering on that
Kinetic yes sorry for spelling it wrong
Yes its shape and largely position made me think about it being used as a tow bar but reading again the FSAE specific rules on the subject this might not be the case
Much love to the team and your creations - you keep doing what you do - its always interesting

[mech5496]

Not sure how many of you have seen it, but UWA did its' 2013 rollout (https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10151729982820810.1073741828.354768375809&type=1) yesterday. The setup seems identical to last year (:D). Anyone from UWA willing to share a bit more info on it?

[Claude Rouelle]

Roll out 3 weeks before the competition? That is project management... Hope all the gods or racing are with them....

[JulianH]

Well Claude, there is a small team called "DUT Racing" from the Netherlands... they had their rollout on June 20th 2012.. what they achieved on July 11-15th 2012 in Silverstone (basically three weeks later) is what some call "history" (one of the closest 2nd places ever). So the Rollout date is not really important...

If the car never drove so far, then you are right, they are going to have a big problem... let's hope they learned from last year and show what the car is able to do (and that it would wings to beat Monash ;)).