2009 Rules

[MrSwa]

Does anyone have anymore information about the 2009 rules? Specifically the template rule for the cockpit. Is everyone's car going to be the same from the front rollhoop forward "we have dubbed it whale nose?" We know that it'll be August until the offical rules, but how do you design a car around rules that aren't out yet? The judges told us we had a huge car this last year (UofL) and we don't come anywhere near passing "whale nose." Can anyone elaborate on this?

[MrSwa]

Does anyone have anymore information about the 2009 rules? Specifically the template rule for the cockpit. Is everyone's car going to be the same from the front rollhoop forward "we have dubbed it whale nose?" We know that it'll be August until the offical rules, but how do you design a car around rules that aren't out yet? The judges told us we had a huge car this last year (UofL) and we don't come anywhere near passing "whale nose." Can anyone elaborate on this?

[Chris_S]

http://students.sae.org/competitions/formulaseries/rules/rules.pdf

Page 104 onwards.

There appear to be a number of teams already building their cars to the 2009 cockpit templates. They make a lot of sense, as it stops teams putting steering racks above drivers shins, gives the driver more elbow room and generally makes it easier for taller/larger drivers to drive them.

[MalcolmG]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chris_S:
http://students.sae.org/competitions/formulaseries/rules/rules.pdf

Page 104 onwards.

There appear to be a number of teams already building their cars to the 2009 cockpit templates. They make a lot of sense, as it stops teams putting steering racks above drivers shins, gives the driver more elbow room and generally makes it easier for taller/larger drivers to drive them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They also allow you to take a passenger, so that you can take sponsors for hot laps, and have an instructor ride with your driver for training. Quite handy really.

[MrSwa]

I've read that. I'm wondering if anyone has any confirmation on these rules. Your driver can't really be any "bigger" but they can defiantly have huge legs.

[Moke]

I'm wondering how many, if any teams have built or will build a 2008 car which will comply with the 2009 rules, especially teams competing in Australasia this year.

I'd love to get their feedback on how much bigger the cars will be and if they can take passengers.

[Brian Perry]

During tech at MIS, I asked Michael Royce about the templates rule and he said that it was going to be put into effect. In fact, he was having someone make up a set of carbon templates.

[Pete Marsh]

Michael Royce made it clear at MIS the templates will be included in the new rules due out soon. There is at least one small change which is a 50mm wide slot half way down the centre of the foot box template to allow it to pass steering coloums easy during tech and also the cockpit template might get a 'front' and 'back'. The requirement for the knees lifting to past the steering wheel is most likley gone.

He also mentioned future changes (not for '09 I presume) to due with belt angles and seat back angles which will make formula car style low driver postions a thing of the past. No welded Ti for any required structure. Tamper proof stickers on wheels (and all wheels the same as eachother) at tech to prevent the use of accel and design event 'special' wheels and super thin tyres. Also some procedure changes to prevent teams with lots of wheels and tyres getting an avantage over those that don't. (there was some of this in place at MIS this year). There was also something to make it impossible to change your restrictor during the event.

UWA's '08 car does pass the new rules as they are in the '07 book and yes, it looks big, but not as bad as you might think. As for a passenger, well, you would have to be 'very close friends' but yes you probably really could get two smallish people in there and drive it! (don't see it doing anything good for you lap time though)

Pete.

[MrSwa]

Thanks for your responses guys. Our car is close the way it sits. Another member e-mail me this morning with a document saying that the template rule will be in place. True it's not the worst thing that could happen, but will make the cars big up front. Guess we'll see how it goes.

[flavorPacket]

I'm not sure I like the tire rule. It's extremely unfair to be forced to damage your tires in the braking test and then run the rest of the competition on them.

I've personally seen the marshals make cars lock up 3 or 4 times because they wanted to make sure the car could do it repeatedly. With such a rule in place, the whims of marshals could seriously damage a team's chances.

Furthermore, what happens if a team gets a puncture? Can they switch to a completely new set, or are they forced to run with 3 worn tires and 1 brand new tire?

[MalcolmG]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As for a passenger, well, you would have to be 'very close friends' but yes you probably really could get two smallish people in there and drive it! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have some pictures I'd love to post with a pair of medium sized humans in a 2009 templates-compliant chassis, but I'm not sure whether we want to start any rumours about our team...we'll take some more with some smaller guys and hopefully they wont look quite so 'friendly'

[Pete Marsh]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by flavorPacket:
I'm not sure I like the tire rule. It's extremely unfair to be forced to damage your tires in the braking test and then run the rest of the competition on them.

I've personally seen the marshals make cars lock up 3 or 4 times because they wanted to make sure the car could do it repeatedly. With such a rule in place, the whims of marshals could seriously damage a team's chances.

Furthermore, what happens if a team gets a puncture? Can they switch to a completely new set, or are they forced to run with 3 worn tires and 1 brand new tire? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know, I think think thats kind of the point, some teams don't have enough tyres to deal with punctures/flat spots etc properly and are therefore at a disadvantage. Besides, no one said anything about limiting the number of tyres or anything like that. The way I interpreted what was said was simply that they would monitor what you were doing (by inspecting and marking everything) to make sure you didn't run special light wheels for weigh in or on the front in accel. Also tyre marking makes it easier to police compound choice now more specialist FSAE tyres are becoming available. You can still fit up some old rubbish for the brake test so as not to ruin your race rubber, as long as its the same size/compound on the same type of wheel you tech with.

The only issue I have with such a rule is the possibility of making it harder for a small team that may wish to spend their limited funds on tyres rather than wheels. If I were in this situation I would buy/make one set of the best wheels I could get, and use road car/cheap and heavy/last years/borrowed from another team, wheels for wets etc. Then I would spend the money saved on enough Goodyears to be competitive on the track and change them onto the good wheels as needed.

I must say I'm not a fan of new rules that pop up at events without any notice, but when its in the book you've had for 9 months or so, and is the same for all, then what ever it is just deal with it. There will always be different ways of managing whatever they throw at us, and some teams will turn that into an advantage. Call it process engineering and thats what we are supposed to do, find the best way of managing the comp for a competitive advantage.

I checked the SAE.org site and the only FAQ regarding the templates is from Feb. It still confirms the tempates are in and includes the 50mm slot or flap as well. It would be a shame if teams didn't meet the new rules as it would stop them competeting next year even if they won the World Cup at Aus and were able to find the funding to go. I'm sure RMIT would comply and probably the Gongs as well. I have also had some contact with one of the Adalaide teams about our shipping crate so they were looking at going international as well. UQ has been successfull O/S before too and may be planning to go again.

It also be bad if we were the only ones with a 'whale nose' car at the comp!

It just occured to me, the '08 spec Euro team cars (what they will bring to Aus if they come) won't be able to run at MIS next year and their '09 cars will generally come out after May. Did any of the Euro teams meet the new template rules with your '08 cars?

Pete

[flavorPacket]

Pete, you make good points, as usual. But isn't part of the competition to teach people about finding funding? 4 extra tires are not 4 extra engines or dampers. If a team doesn't have enough funds for a spare tire in the case of a puncture, then they most likely have not planned correctly.

It seems that the organizers are penalizing teams that have been successful in finding funds in order to 'level the playing field'. I think this goes against the spirit of the competition.

[Pete Fodor]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pete Marsh:
He also mentioned future changes (not for '09 I presume) to due with belt angles and seat back angles which will make formula car style low driver postions a thing of the past.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't like this idea. Whats the problem with low positions? Wouldn't it be better to concentrate on making sure that seat belt attachment points are suitably fixed and that Roll Hoops are Mandrel Bent? Along with a better crash structure at the front?

I'd also like to see and this is entirely directed at the FSUK event - Marshall not parking big Pick ups in run off areas or gaps in the armco at a point just after a corner so that people don't lose their heads. As I remember KTH last year ended up underneath the damn thing. The corner was not well placed and the track design for that reason was terrible.

[Mike Macie]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pete Fodor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pete Marsh:
He also mentioned future changes (not for '09 I presume) to due with belt angles and seat back angles which will make formula car style low driver postions a thing of the past.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't like this idea. Whats the problem with low positions? Wouldn't it be better to concentrate on making sure that seat belt attachment points are suitably fixed and that Roll Hoops are Mandrel Bent? Along with a better crash structure at the front?

I'd also like to see and this is entirely directed at the FSUK event - Marshall not parking big Pick ups in run off areas or gaps in the armco at a point just after a corner so that people don't lose their heads. As I remember KTH last year ended up underneath the damn thing. The corner was not well placed and the track design for that reason was terrible. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The problem is that teams are leaning the driver back so far that the belts can be a safety issue.

[Pete Fodor]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pete Marsh:
He also mentioned future changes (not for '09 I presume) to due with belt angles and seat back angles which will make formula car style low driver postions a thing of the past.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not being funny but I don't suppose you could elaborate on that? As I'm wondering a bit what the problem is specifically?

Is it related to the submarining effect or a problem with the shoulder straps? IE where on the body is the problem thinking from a safety point of view.

I'm most likely being ignorant so i humbly apologise but I want details =P

[BYFE]

I can understand the concern on mounting the belts, although the big formula guys have been in the lay down position for years.
An upright position would be easier, but I have seen many cars (in other series) that obviously don't even read the inclosed instruction sheet.
Those comments on course saftey concern me.

[PSUAlum06]

My interpretation of the tire/wheel procedures is pretty similar to Pete's. I think what they're mainly trying to curb are things like switching compounds between events(like switching from Goodyear D2691's to 2692's for endurance), etc.

As far as tire quantities go, unless the tires you're running have a tread compound with the tear-strength of play-dough it shouldn't be that much of a stretch to make it through competition on a single set. That said, I don't see a particular need to limit teams to a single set. Another set of tires is a drop in the bucket compared to the total cost of going to comp. Besides, I can think of at least one or two slower to middle of the pack teams that have convinced a tire company to throw a couple sets their way.

Of course, if they really wanted to level the playing field, there are a lot of other things they could do. An outright ban on wireless telemetry, interconnected dampers, yellow paint, and letting part time students(who may or may not be Australian) drive would go pretty far to keep things even.

[Fil]

we are making our car to suit 2009 rules or formula bus as we are calling it now.

see the attached photos showing the 2008 bulkhead on the 2007 bulkhead.
http://photos-d.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v289/177/10/731774358/n731774358_963387_8570.jpg

i wear size uk13 shoes

http://photos-c.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v289/177/10/731774358/n731774358_963386_8283.jpg

Why didnt they couple these templates with feet in front of the axle line? If we really want to go safe, thats one of the safest options...

at least out fat drivers dont complain, well i dont complain...

Michael pulled us up about seatbelt angle and back angle and it makes sense you need the waist strap running against your hip bones and not your stomach or crotch. if you do suffer an impact the waist strap will certainly do some damage to your old fella and internal organs if its too high or low.

[Brian Schien]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pete Marsh:
It just occured to me, the '08 spec Euro team cars (what they will bring to Aus if they come) won't be able to run at MIS next year and their '09 cars will generally come out after May. Did any of the Euro teams meet the new template rules with your '08 cars?

Pete </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



That's one of the first things I realized it might finally give the American teams a chance they wont have to be competing against the euro and au cars that are almost a year old by the time they get to Detroit.

[Moke]

Not so my friend, so far we know that UWA, RMIT, Monash, and Auckland are building bus cars and I'm sure more teams will come out of the woodwork.

[Pete Marsh]

I like the lay down seating positions both because it makes sence from a CoG point of veiw and it makes for great looking cars. Just take a look at that new car from TU Darmstadt! Who wouldn't want one of those to play with on the weekend? Also they fit in our shipping crate, which an upright seat car will not!

There is no doubt it is easy to get the belt and seat arangement wrong, and the current rules don't really cut it as they are in this regard when the driver is layed down. The tech inspectors don't want to have to argue with every second team as to why, although it meets the letter of the rules, its just not safe.

But it can be done, and has been done, even in FSAE. Maybe two sets of rules could work. One much the same as the current rules applying to cars with seat back angles more upright than 'x' angle. The second for seats below 'x' far more stringent, including rules regarding an appropriate seat, and requiring proper belt positions and angles to the body of every driver at the comp.
This way means more rules, but the safety issues would be covered, and although many teams may opt for the simpler option just to avoid the hassle anyway, at least you could still build what you want. As long as you are prepared to do it properly!

Pete.

[Ecks]

I must agree. More and more we see the rules pushing all the cars towards one design family.

A a driver structural equivalency form seems like a good start.

[Pennyman]

One quick question for you fellows about template Y.

When it say's it will be passed through the cockpit to a point "100mm behind the face of the rear-most pedal blah blah blah..." by "behind the face" do they mean behind relative to the car? Or behind relative to the pedal? (assuming the "front" of the pedalbox is the side closest to your feet)

The wording just seems so vague. Aren't engineers supposed to be good at clear, concise writing?

I like the Formula whale comment. Maybe I'll have some stickers made up for anyone who wants some, haha.

[PSUAlum06]

I think the first team to paint their car up to look like a whale should get bonus points in design.

[Pennyman]

I played with the logo a little bit. Please, I mean no disrespect.

http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/5497/fbuskc6.png

[HoggyN]

Perhaps this might be more appropriate...http://www.noots.org.uk/fs/forum/formula-bus.jpg

[Kemper]

The second one rules! LOL

Hey guys, lets sponsor the first team that has the guts to do the whale paintjob. I offer 10 bucks, given in hands at FSAE West 2009 if I see the car on the design contest. But it has to be clear that is a whale. C'mon people, if we get 50 people or more giving 10 bucks each, might be a way to smaller teams be funny and get some cash! lol

now, just to keep on the topic: up to what point is THAT necessary to make it too wide? They can say that is to help the driver egress and blah blah, but as far as I remember, things loose inside a crashing car tend to damage more (that's why we use seatbelts, right?). With the legs "floating" around, in case of a side crash or the car rolling laterally, the knees and ankles will suffer. "Ok, add some pads and you keep the legs in place", they might say, but then, what about the driver egress? lol

I'm just trying to figure out why that rule...

[Composites Guy]

Wow... how times have changed. I posted my disgust with the new template-rules at the first hint of their introducation and was soundly boo-ed on these forums.

In my oppinion we're only a couple rule-revisions away from a minimum weight limit.

[James Morris]

Hey all,

At the awards ceremony at the end of formula student I believe Mr Royce mentioned the new rule changes, they look certain to be bought in, apart from the very silly rule about being able to lift your knees in front of the roll hoop.

He also said that they are trying the re write the costing rule to get rid of the $25000 maximum limit and also get rid of proof of purchase using receipts, but it is not known if this will be done in time for the 2009 rules.

So it looks like that these new template rules are a dead certain for the 2009 competition, so lets stop whingeing about them and get a little creative with some interpretations. The chassis are going to be bigger and this is going to open some different design avenues, with all this extra space knocking in the cockpit there is going to be opportunities for running a front or even side engine arrangements.

How about this for an idea. Mount a Suzuki sv650 motor that has been de-stroked to 610cc at the front of the car, running a prop shaft down the side of the chassis into a avt differential, with the driver laying low directly on top of the diff! The rear roll hoop then ends at the very rear of the car.

I seriously believe the formula SAE/Student has some of the most talented and innovative young engineers and these new templates should pose no real hurdle if you just look outside the box a little!

So how about doing some rough cad work and trashing out the positives and negatives of any unusual designs on this forum!

[flavorPacket]

well James, how about we don't risk a year's worth of work on an unproven concept?

If your team is interested in being remembered as 'the guys who built the crazy thing that didn't work', by all means go ahead. But don't tell others how to run their teams. Some teams are not interested in innovation, but rather winning.

[rjwoods77]

I always thought a suzuki bergman 650 scooter engine parallel twin front engine would be pretty neet. Put your keep over the engine. It already is designed to laydown really far.

[MalcolmG]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by James Morris:
Hey all,

At the awards ceremony at the end of formula student I believe Mr Royce mentioned the new rule changes, they look certain to be bought in, apart from the very silly rule about being able to lift your knees in front of the roll hoop.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know if the getting your knees past the front roll hoop is that silly, I think it probably makes more sense in terms of driver safety/removing an injured driver than having a 350mm square able to pass through the cockpit. Our chassis for this year has been built to the proposed 2009 rules and I'm 6'1 and can get my knees past the steering wheel plane. To achieve it all we had to do was sit the driver up slightly (from 40 degrees to 45) and change the shape of the front of the cockpit opening to be wide enough for 2 knees to get through.

I'm not sure anyone is really complaining that much about the rules, we all have to meet them so noone is really disavantaged (although some of us have started implementing them earlier than others), I think it's more just a bit of friendly banter about how some of them seem a bit on the large size.

[Pete M]

Yep, Wollongong is also building a bus this year. Whether they take it overseas or not will depend heavily on the financial situation.

[Pennyman]

I have a legitimate question.

How in the world are they going to pass template Y through the cockpit if the steering column is in the way on all the cars? Are they just going to eyeball it? Special collapsible/expandable template? STOP BEING VAGUE!!

[MalcolmG]

have you read the rules clarification on the SAE website? I'm pretty sure it states that they'll have a 50mm slot cut halfway through the template, which may or may not have a flap over it. Once they get halfway along the cockpit they'll turn the template upside down so the slot is on the bottom

[James Morris]

@flavorPacket

What makes you think that a front or side engine formula student would not work? I believe that there is an Australian team out there that is really competitive running a car with a side engine!

And please don't think that I am trying to tell you how to run your team! I'm simply stating that these new rules are going to imply that the chassis is going to be bigger and that there is going to be a much larger amount of retail space available for packaging of components. With this extra space, and therefore weight added to the chassis, new designs possibilities are now available as previous they would have been disregarded they would have added weight or made roll hoops to big.

As for innovation lets just look at the history books shall we;
· 1923 Benz Tropfenwagen
· 1934&gt; Auto Union Type A,B,C & D
· 1937 Mercedes-Benz W125
· 1954 Lancia D50
· Anything designed by Vandervell, Cooper or Chapman in the late 50, early 60!
· The Cosworth DFV and the aero development needed to utilise all its power
· 1976 Tyrrel P34
· 1977 Renault RS01
· 1978 Brabham BT46B
· 1983 McLaren MP4
All these cars are innovative in some way, with either the designs trends being still being used today or having the technology band as it was deemed to much of a performance advantage!

Perhaps we will build a front engined formula student, perhaps we wont, but we will experiment with these ideas and try to find performance advantages and in the process learn a lot instead of just following the old formula of feet, front wheels, body, engine, rear wheels!

As for winning, after just designing the car which averaged 2nd place overall in the dynamic events place at formula student last weekend, I think I can say we are thoroughly interested in winning, and our team will explore every possible performance avenue to find some advantages.

@ Rob Woods

Your on my wavelength, and that engine could be packaged in some very interesting ways, I like where your coming from!

@ MalcolmG

The other side of this argument is that in a roll over there is nothing stopping you knees and therefore legs flailing around outside of the chassis, and it does point most designs down the same road.

James Morris
Swansea Metropolitan University

[MalcolmG]

I'm not sure that the rules really allow you much extra space to do crazy things, remember this space must be open and free of obstructions (except removable padding). The only extra space that was created on our car was behind the seat, as the monocoque width was considerably wider around the driver's shoulders than it used to be, so it creates a bit of room on either side of the front of the engine. I don't really expect to see these new rules allowing more room for innovative layouts, in fact I imagine that template X may be causing some issues for Deakin (Ashley? I saw you guys are building to the templates, any comments?)

[Matthew Bell]

Isn't there talk of a minimum seat back angle requirement, too? I recall hearing somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 degrees.

[Yellow Ranger]

That's suggested for 2010 I believe...

[HoggyN]

The University of Central Lancashire (UCLAN) in the UK has been running a side engined car for a number of years.

Linky 1 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y6Dc8WfLNw)

Linky 2 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=aNPirPsPROI&feature=related)

It looks like they will need a really wide car to accomodate the cockpit width template and the engine.

[Wes Johnson]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pennyman:
One quick question for you fellows about template Y.

When it say's it will be passed through the cockpit to a point "100mm behind the face of the rear-most pedal blah blah blah..." by "behind the face" do they mean behind relative to the car? Or behind relative to the pedal? (assuming the "front" of the pedalbox is the side closest to your feet)

The wording just seems so vague. Aren't engineers supposed to be good at clear, concise writing?

I like the Formula whale comment. Maybe I'll have some stickers made up for anyone who wants some, haha. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I'm curious to hear everyone else's interpretation on this as well.

[Wesley]

The template is to pass to 100mm aft of the pedals . Mr. Royce told us during tech. In other words, it stops 4" short of the pedals when passing through.

[screwdriver]

I'd say like so:
http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/4867/clipboardro8.th.jpg (http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/4867/clipboardro8.jpg)

[Pennyman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by screwdriver:
I'd say like so:
http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/4867/clipboardro8.th.jpg (http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/4867/clipboardro8.jpg) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This brings up another important question:

What about adjustable pedal boxes? If the pedal box is adjustable up to the front roll hoop (a bit extreme, but still), where would you set the pedals in order to do the test?

The plot thickens still with regard to teams who mount a "clutch pedal" to the chassis tubing rather than the pedal box. An example would be Helsinki's car from 2006 I believe.
View it here (http://www.formula.stadia.fi/BO2007/album/slides/IMG_4619.html)

If that pedal was located a significant distance rearward of the pedal box, would the template still stop at that pedal?

Discuss.

[Yellow Ranger]

It's in the revised rules- I'm sure it's for the pedal setting closest to the front bulkhead.

Internal Cross Section:

A. A free vertical cross section, which allows the template shown in Drawing Y to be passed
vertically through the cockpit to a point 100 mm (4 inches) behind the face of the rearmost
pedal when in the inoperative position, must be maintained over its entire length.

[Kemper]

it is written somewhere (sorry being lazy to don't copy and paste it) that in case of adjustable pedals, it should be set on the closest-to-the-bulkhead position. Revised rules 2008, but I am pretty sure is not on the part about the cockpit templates but about brakes/pedals (although they make a reference about this rule on the template part). I was planning the extremist "pedal box adjustable up to the front roll hoop" but I guess they prevented this kind of stuff... hehehe

and about the 100mm distance, I'll stick with Screwdriver, is the same idea I got after reading the same thing for 5min...

[Matt N]

I think an answer to several people's questions, on "how would you interpret XX, or YY..."

Its all up to the tech inspectors when you are in the queue. If you would like to have a more conclusive answer before you go to comp, write a rules clarification. It is easy and you will likely have a complete answer in around two weeks.

With the new rules and this year's course management policies (extremely bad passing zones, meatballs and black flag penalties for whatever) I'm inclined to think it will become like NASCAR has lately: big punishments for every single marginal infraction, in order to suggest not pushing the rules so hard. Its a shame to do this with so much talent and opportunity.

[Mike Cook]

Come on Matt, FSAE rules are the most open rule set of all motorsports. If you can't be innovative in FSAE car you might as well give up all together because you suck at life. Most rules in FSAE are aimed at making the cars safe. In other racing leagues rules are put in place to prevent excessive costs, in FSAE, this really is never the case. Certainly you will be penalized in the cost event if you are overly excessive but you can still do it.

You all are engineers, it shouldn't be difficult to read and follow the rules. I'm amazed at how many people brought cars to competition not meeting the 2" helmet clearance rule this year. I mean they made it kind of obvious last year that they were going to crack down on this rule and there were still a huge number of teams that appeared to be in violation. Saving that last ounce of weight when designing the car is not worth the stress of struggling to get through tech because your roll hoop is .5" too short.

Seriously, with the invent of CAD software there really shouldn't be any reason to screw these rules up. Also, you guys are all so concerned with weight and how the new cars are going to be slightly bigger and heavier but honestly its not going to really slow these cars down at all. 90% of these cars that come to competition (more than 1-2seconds off the pace) need a lot more work than just weight reduction. So don't worry about the weight so much, get the car done early and try to tune the damn thing.

[benny41]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MalcolmG:
I'm not sure that the rules really allow you much extra space to do crazy things, remember this space must be open and free of obstructions (except removable padding). The only extra space that was created on our car was behind the seat, as the monocoque width was considerably wider around the driver's shoulders than it used to be, so it creates a bit of room on either side of the front of the engine. I don't really expect to see these new rules allowing more room for innovative layouts, in fact I imagine that template X may be causing some issues for Deakin (Ashley? I saw you guys are building to the templates, any comments?) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes Malcolm we are joining the bus brigade this year aswell. We havnt run in to many dramas with template x even though the car will be slightly wider than the previous cars. We did have some trouble with getting the y template to fit but these have been rectified.

We wouldnt be too happy if the brought in a seat angle rule it would probablly spell the end of the sidewinder. but that is in the future we have much to do before then.

Ben
Deakin Race Technologies

[flavorPacket]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mike Cook:
Come on Matt, FSAE rules are the most open rule set of all motorsports. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And that's why it's so tough. Designing with no constraints is much harder because you have nothing to go off of.

[Pennyman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by flavorPacket:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mike Cook:
Come on Matt, FSAE rules are the most open rule set of all motorsports. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And that's why it's so tough. Designing with no constraints is much harder because you have nothing to go off of. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's why you copy winning designs and reverse engineer them! (beer talking)

No really. It's good that they give us so much leniency in our designs. Unfortunately it seems like lately they've been cracking down on things that could "cause" safety problems or the like.

I remember talking to someone on a team from the early 90's. Apparently they allowed multiple cars to be entered per team. Pretty unheard of now! I'd like to see a rulebook from 15 years ago and see how it compares to today's.

I have no complaints though. I'm really excited to be working on FSAE and I wouldn't have it any other way.

[flavorPacket]

Indeed. What's most interesting to me is that when the ergo judges sat in our 07 car at design finals (which was nearly big enough to fit the leg template), they said it was unsafe because the driver's legs flop around too much and could fall off the pedals.

Ah, how much difference a year can make!

[wooly]

So the cars are going to be bigger at the front - who cares? Why not shift the radiator there and make your car look like something Jackie Stewart would have driven in the early 70's? You know the type, big front spoiler, bulging sides, massive slicks, DFV...

Okay, it won't be competitive (maybe) against the other whales/buses/whatever, but it would look awesome...

I'd drop a picture in of what I'm talking about if only I knew how! But google Tyrrell 001 or Matra MS120D and you'll see what I mean.

[PSUAlum06]

I'd imagine that there might be issues with using the radiator as the impact attenuator.

[D Collins Jr]

And bear in mind that there's a reason those cars went away...

Namely, broken feet.

[wooly]

Broken feet? The reason those cars went away was a little thing called the Lotus 72, which was the first successful F1 car to stick the radiators down the sides, not in the nose.

But given the new rules, if you wanted to make your car look good, which seems to be the main gripe everyone has (Formula Whale blah blah blah...), it wouldn't be a bad option - even stick your radiator down the back somewhere but 'style' your car if need be.

I'd buy one if it looked like a Tyrrell...

[D Collins Jr]

Well, aside from F1 cars from the 70's and whales, what does everyone think of the new Fuel Economy rules for 2009?

I'm guessing that RMIT and Buffalo are big fans

[rjwoods77]

Cant open it. Please copy and paste it here.

[D Collins Jr]

Fuel Economy Scoring Changes for 2009!

WARRENDALE, Pa., Aug. 1, 2008

Fuel economy has become an increasingly critical design consideration for vehicles of every type and we believe it is appropriate that it be given greater emphasis at Formula SAE. Effective with nest year's Formula SAE series the maximum score for the Fuel Economy event will be doubled from 50 to 100 points. The scoring formula is also being significantly revised to all the Fuel Economy score to range from positive 100 points to negative 100 points (+100 to -100).

Scoring for the Endurance event will also change. Specifically (1) the maximum score for Endurance will drop from 350 to 300 points and (2) the 4 minute fuel economy penalty (2008 Rule 5.7.15.9 "Poor Fuel Economy"�) will be eliminated. Endurance and Fuel Economy will still be related in that a minimum speed must be maintained to receive a score; hence driving slowly to get better gas mileage only works to a point.

Under the old rules if your car's fuel consumption during Endurance exceeded 26 liters/100km, your team received a 4 minute penalty applied directly against your Endurance score and zero points for Fuel Economy. The new rules will implement a curve of negative points that will drop steeply once your consumption exceeds 29 liters/100km.

How will these changes affect your team? If your car has good fuel economy you have the chance to score more points. If your car burns just a little too much fuel you'll avoid the huge 4 minute penalty in endurance, but get some negative Fuel Economy points. If your economy is really bad then you could end up with as many as 100 negative points!

[Mike Macie]

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

We jumped 6 spots in endurance scoring 48 out of 50. I would guess this could move us up another 5 and a couple more overall.

It should be interesting to see what the top teams do this year. RMIT might have won overall if this rule was implemented last year. I think they were the only team in the top ten that didn't use a f4i.

[Mike Cook]

Lame...

I'll miss our f4i...

remind me again why the weekend autocrosser cares about fuel economy? If I cared I would join formula Hybrid.

[flavorPacket]

ah, nothing like a rule change after 75% of your car is already designed...

Thank you, rules committee.

[Yellow Ranger]

again

[Drew Price]

RMIT, Buffalo, and ETS may be set up to take a big benefit from this rule, but as I am looking at the MIS fuel economy scores, UWA was only a couple tenths of a gallon behind ETS's WR-450 in consumption, and Toledo, Graz, and MO S&T weren't that far behind in consumption. And since we can't see the formula yet, there's no way of knowing how steep the points dropoff from the leading cars is.

The large disparity in how little fuel the RMIT car used compared to the other 450's and Briggs engines might also be an indicator of the level of development they put into tuning.

Best,
Drew

[rjwoods77]

Drew,

You hit the nail on the head on that one. Our car ran rich and safe so our full potential gas milage and for that matter power was limited. Shitty BSFC on a engine that made dick for horsepower is still much better than most for getting good milage and for that matter an 18th finish. I would assume that we could have won the milage part with good tuning. I saw the same milage results from UWA as well and they were shocking compared to their performance traits. Some teams spend an extraordinary amount of time getting good tunes and as a calibrator I know how hard it can be.

Everyone,

If anyone complains about this being the end of anything is just belly aching. For that matter anyone who really complains about any of the recent changes is belly aching because the only reason most of these changes are here are because we have been trying to skirt the intent of the rules and design of the competition for far too long and the judges are got fed up with it. We tested their patience and they reeled us back in. Couldn't see that one cominghttp://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gifAs far as changes in rules that "screw people over in their design phase" is garbage too. The rules come out in September. Your car is an idea in your head/paper/CAD until you have official rules sets to work from. I love how people moan about changes ruining the comp and how these suck blah blah blah. Most teams also design for the their resume for future race employment instead of the competition. But the judges implement rules sets and regulations that are used in real racing and then these same people cry bloody murder about fuel economy, "formula bus" sized cars, crash safety rules when they are trying to get jobs doing this in real life. Look at what is going on with F1. Can-am/GTP/Group 8? cars were more or less killed by fuel economy standards because the series just got too out of control. What side of the fence do you want to be on because it cant be both. Cake and eat it to just isnt going to happen. It is so easy to pass the buck and say "stupid judges" but in reality a persons inability to accept changes that are for the betterment of the series, your design experience, etc are what the problem is. UB finished 18th with a car that meets the "bus" rules, had about 30hp on a very shaky tune, junk suspension tuning, overweight with almost no driver training so obviously these new rules and factors arent killing anything. In other words "Man up and quit bitching like a little children."

[flavorPacket]

Rob, give me a break. When the judges let a car with rapid prototyped titanium uprights and ceramic wheel bearings that cost more then your team's car win design, they aren't reeling anything in. When a team with a $35,000 electronics system comes in the top 5 in cost, they aren't reeling anything in.

There is a huge disconnect between the design judges and the rules people, and it's absurd that we have to serve two masters, as it were. It is not like this in any other motorsports series because the rules committee is the only relevant body.

The organizers of this event need to choose if they want an engineering competition or a racing series. You can't have both.

If the rules people see us skirting the rules, what did they expect? This is a competition, and we are trying to extract every single advantage we can.

And the rules coming out in September IS far too late. If the judges want a car that has been thoroughly designed, giving us two or three months to design it doesn't make much sense. Why can't they give us the whole summer? No team has the resources to put out something that's 100% well-designed in that kind of time frame. Even F1 teams struggle to do it.

And please show me the real racing series where the front suspension and driver's legs must occupy the same longitudinal position while complying with a template as big as the one we have to meet.

[Superfast Matt McCoy]

I'm probably going to come off as an asshole, but I feel like this should be said. "We finished 18th, therefore all the design choices we made are competitive" seems to keep cropping up in discussions here. 18th is in the bottom half of the teams that finished endurance and justifies nothing about your design except that it is reliable.

Reliability is good, I commend you on accomplishing a goal that most other teams undervalue. A solid axle bus with 30 horsepower is still a bad idea if you want to be a top team. And if you don't want to be a top team, it doesn't really matter what you do.

Sorry.

As far as the rules: if you want real world experience, then you should really appreciate design changes that crop up after you've already finished your design. Also, you should enjoy random and seemingly arbitrary design requirements, especially in racing. These rules are more reasonable and come with a lot more warning than what you would see in most major racing series. They could announce ten days before the competition that a Subway Cold Cut footlong sandwich must be used as a rear impact attenuator, and you'd get some really good experience balancing the design requirement and the performance benefit of extra pickles.

[Mike Cook]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rjwoods77:
blah blah blah blah </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The fact of the matter is these cars are designed to be weekend autocross cars. Fuel economy doesn't matter because these cars don't have to pit, and they only run 4-8 laps.

So we have two cars we're trying to sell our weekend autocrosser -

Car A has a Briggs engine, is gigantic, unattractive, handles like a bus, an all around POS, but gets great fuel economy.

Car B looks great, handles great, pulls out of the turns wonderfully and still gets 20mpg.

Which car are you going to buy?

and btw Robb, 18th place is an eternity from 1st place.


To follow up with what Matt said - I think rule changes are good bc they benefit the best teams (that is, the teams the most able to quickly analyze and adapt to a new situation.) and I can get an advantage. Still, running an f4i, even tuned for fuel economy and probably restricted down past 20mm is going to be tough to compete with the single cylinder engines.

[VFR750R]

These cars are not designed to be weekend autocrossers. They're meant to score 1000 possible points in an engineering competiton. One in which the rules specify part of those 1000 points for fuel economy. Everyone has the same rules and got them the same day.

You want to know what unfair is, how bout the week before competition they tell you all gasoline cars are to run 19mm restrictors. That's what they did to toyota last week in the NGN series, that's what real life is.

I think the fuel economy rule is great, not one of you will go into a field that energy is free. Not one. Every racing series has fuel economy rules (mostly size of fuel tank). You like that idea better? If you dont' meet fuel consumption expectations you fail endurance because you run out. At least you've been given the chance to finish and been told a year ahead.

[James Morris]

Why good bye to a CBRF4i?

The only downside to a CBR is the weight (offset by driveability torque and reliability), our car was second in fuel economy at the recent formula student event with a 249kg car. Only being beaten by a single cylinder 150kg car! (Using 3.654 litres 2.6 litres adjusted).

We designed our fuel tank around 2007 fuel consumption then multiplied it by the increase in power we were expecting and again by the ratio of calorific value of gasoline and E85 as we made the switch.

There seems to be a major advantage with E85, there is a 40% bonus in recalculated fuel eco, but you only actually need 30% more tops. I have read a lot of people did not want to change to E85 as there is a weight disadvantage, on a 4 litre tank that is less than 1kg for a massive points gain!

I think this rule change is good as it will make people think about where the biggest gain are to be made in thier engine package within the rules. Most of the cars as fsuk sound like they have never seen a dyno, and I cannot see why teams spend so much time optimising restrictors and plenums without looking at their engine fundamentals first and prioritising their time accordingly for their engine development accordingly.

Things will only improve for us next year once we get individual cylinder trim on the go, some trick coatings and stick our car on a much needed diet! We'll be aiming for No1 in eco.

enduro/eco results fsuk08 http://www.formulastudent.com/NR/rdonlyres/8FCB42A5-693..._Class1Endurance.pdf (http://www.formulastudent.com/NR/rdonlyres/8FCB42A5-6935-46D5-8B67-5AA48D75A154/0/FStudent_2008_Class1Endurance.pdf)
James Morris

Swansea Metropolitan University

[rjwoods77]

My point in bringing up 18th while mentioning that it wasn't ideal is to show that you don't need to even run certain equipment to finish high in this competition which has been mentioned time and again in this forum. I am not using it as a bragging point because after 3 years of working to get the car there it should have done much better but thats tuning and real engineering not being done for you. I know where we ended up in the pecking order and I don't need it pointed out. If your contention is that 18th is no-where place you just slammed way more teams that care than I do about our finish. 18th justified plenty of stuff in our car because the areas that we knew it would pay off it did. The areas that we knew we weren't going to do well didn't. So to say that finishing 18th didn't prove anything to us is really just a junk statement because our car, for the shitty nowhere place of 18th proved that the equipment and direction we are headed is the correct direction. Nowhere near perfect but hopefully that will come in time. Its funny when reliability is spoken of lightly in the competition when it is everything. I am sure when an F1 team fails to finish a race that they are stroking each other off in the garage because it goes fast when it works. Or so by that train of thought. A solid axle, cvt, engine with 15hp more and 50lbs less, which are the teams future design goals, while being cheap, reliable and easy to drive are more than enough to win the comp I am not sad to say. All of which are achievable with some real work done by the team. Time will tell I guess but for all you future wannabe race car designers these rules changes will benefit you in the future.

Rules,

The American comps end at the beginning of summer and it takes time for the judges to compare all the "i cant believe they are still doing this shit" notes and pass rules changes that they have either been looking at for a while or nipping news ones right in the bud. But seeing that they give notice to most changes shows they have been thinking about them for a while and they don't see us fixing the things they don't like so they go ahead and make them law. Sort of like mom and dad warning you before they hit you. Once again whine and cry about how life isn't perfect. I wish the rules came out early but they don't. There are many teams who are able to get there systems integrated after changes are made due to fall rules. There are a bunch that don't. This even goes back to my thread about a year ago about rising costs of fsae and if teams even belong in this competition, my school included. If you cant do what the other teams do in the prescribed time then it means you are not as good as they are and you deserve not to finish as well as they do. I know this about our program and hope in time they work out of that.

[The AFX Master]

As far i know.. our standard of what to name a "judge" is precisely a design event judge. People that do the rules are in no way connected with design judges at all.. see the example of the titanium rapid prototyping above.

About the rules in september.. isnt about "whining and crying" (btw, you were trollish saying that"), it's about a PROCESS. you need to Design and then Build, then test and test and test. And by september, some teams (as us) have as a goal to make half chassis and other parts. The discussion here is not about the known changes (templates, Fuel economy etc etc) That's ok and we don't worry about that. It's about the "surprises" that can be found on a september release of the rules that can ruin an entire month of the design phase. As last year's steering wheel rule clarification on december.

If you say "in the real life, in the real blah blah" you can say also that in the real life that's your JOB and you get paid for that, and you can focus on solving things in a hurry, you don't have to attend school or struggle against the difficulties that arise from being "a group of college guys making race cars", like getting sponsorship and money, so time is pretty gold valued at F-SAE

The "prescribed time" as you said, is an entire year, say 9 months being realistic. Not seven or less.


Try to smuggle into a top 10 with Acceleration, Skidpad and Auto X results on the 50ish-60ish .. You simply WONT get there. just because it's cheap doesn't mean it can't be fast.. and your car isn't a bit near of being fast. Think that almost all the fast teams also finish enduro so, you'll get hard to go from 18 to 15 for example. So don't say that you have "the correct direction to win" because that's a lie of the size of the Y template.

The only thing you can prove here is that you know about reliability, But nothing more. As you said (and i'm totally agree) Reliability is the whole 100%.
Sad is that in order to win, you need to give as much as 200%

[Mike Macie]

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

Try to smuggle into a top 10 with Acceleration, Skidpad and Auto X results on the 50ish-60ish .. You simply WONT get there. just because it's cheap doesn't mean it can't be fast.. and your car isn't a bit near of being fast. Think that almost all the fast teams also finish enduro so, you'll get hard to go from 18 to 15 for example. So don't say that you have "the correct direction to win" because that's a lie of the size of the Y template.

The only thing you can prove here is that you know about reliability, But nothing more. As you said (and i'm totally agree) Reliability is the whole 100%.
Sad is that in order to win, you need to give as much as 200% </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hate to keep draging this on but we pretty much were a rookie team, with no competition experience, and a 1st year car. Our goal was to just finish all the events. I know 18th isn't anything to brag about. The reason your hearing it is because there was so much done incorrectly and the new guys taking over know that 50-60th is not what the concept is capable of.

My only complaint would be that there was no warning for this change. The Rules Committee knows the design starts way before the rules are released. That's why the warn us at comp and in the rules. Results show that all engine options can be competititve in Fuel Economy. I doubt anyone would change because of this. It just puts more of a focus on tuning which does not start until the winter for most teams. It's really not that big of surprise.

[flavorPacket]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mike Macie:
Results show that all engine options can be competititve in Fuel Economy. I doubt anyone would change because of this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well Mike, that's the difference between your team and mine. And we cannot make a powertrain change in mid August.

[Davo]

I can understand why the rules committee would want keep changing the rules. Besides safety issues they'd do it to stop the designs from stagnating. People are saying that the design judges and the rules committee are completely separate and although they may have different goals, I'm sure the rules committee would be in close contact with the people who lead the design judges. And they'd be hearing more and more that the cars are becoming clones of that school's previous efforts. Rule changes simply give us new challenges.

However in saying that I don't see why non-safety related rules have to be announced within a year of the comp. Why not say they'll be in the following year? It's still the same technical challenge only teams would have more time to fully understand the challenge and learn more from it.

I think it was mentioned earlier in this topic that the best teams would get past sudden rule changes while the lesser teams would struggle. Maybe it depends on how you define the "best" teams but I would think that the teams with the most money would be able to adapt better. Being part of a smaller team I can understand why some teams aren't real happy about the changes. I know we carry over elements of the old car purely because we know it works and we'll get it right first time. Having to go a different direction is fine but you're bound to stuff something up. If that a big enough stuff up (blowing up a new unfamiliar engine springs to mind) a team with a shoestring budget could be ruined.

[Pete Marsh]

Well if you think 7 months is not long enough to change your design how about 7 weeks? Our '08 car, for the '09 international events, is due for launch in 7 weeks, with some test time before exams and then the FSAE-A comp in November. There won't be many changes to the car at this point. It does already incorporate the previously advised changes to the rules.

I have mentioned before and will again, RMIT are the only team to score 400 points for enduro/fuel and have done it a couple of times. If you fail to be impressed by that and strive to get somewhere near them then you are very short sighted. I'm not suprised by increased weighting on fuel economy, and maybe the fact that not many teams seem to chase the relatively easy and valuable fuel points in the old rules is part of the reason for the change. Everybody will surely make fuel effeciency a big part of their design compromise now! This (late) change will hand a big advantage to the teams that have worked hard on fuel effeciency in the past (and particularly to RMIT and their Dilithium crystal ion drive, or whatever it is they use to make it go fast without petrol) regardless of engine choice, but only until others change their focus to suit the new rules.

It would have been nice to know a little earlier so as to include a new speed vs economy balance in the design, but hey! its not like the rule has been anounced during tech inspection as has happened in the past.

Pete

[Derf]

A few other points:

FSAE is largely sponsored by automotive OEMs, suppliers, and the namesake professional engineering organization. Their goal is to help young engineers develop a skill set valuable to the sponsoring organizations via a ploy we will call a race. Fuel prices seem to be having an effect on the business models of these corporations and they will probably be more interested in efficiency minded employees. In the same respect, SAE is probably going to mirror this demand by emphasizing efficiency in their educational programs, or races as we call it.

Secondly, this is also a point of fairness to some teams, and maybe a lot more teams if they would finish endurance. With endurance times becoming more and more competitive each year the critical nature of a 240 second penalty is immense if your team is somewhere at or below the midrange of the 133% time cutoff. Looking at the results of the 3 US competitions this year several teams were affected in this way. If it affected you in this way, you 'finished' all events, but you don't even get the darn certificate of participation due to the fuel penalty after the fact. I'm sure those teams would have take the -100 points and said they finished all the events officially. Granted, this change will also allow the sippers to score more points, but I'll still have fun.

On a different subject, but still pertaining to economy, I wonder if they will ever institute a tire (or tyre) penalty or point system of sorts To encourage tire management, add another level to chassis development, and maybe level the playing field between teams with many tires and those with few. Lets say everybody gets their first set for free. For each subsequent set you pay for them with points in some respect. You're still free to use chewing gum tires if want, but it might be questionable whether you will make back the points? Keeping the issue of tires a relatively totally rule free area of the competition is one of the best things about FSAE, but I think such a system would enhance the process by expanding the necessary considerations on tire choice, management of tires, and suspension design.

[Big Bird]

I love the "these rules are stupid, you don't worry about fuel economy in autocross" arguments. As if the SAE implemented this competition to address a skill shortage in the weekend autocross vehicle design industry....

VFR and Derf have got it in one. This event is about improving our automotive engineering skills in general, and the rules as they stand give us a damn good opportunity to do so. The organizers want to make us reason our way through a design process, with all the inherent constraints and conflicting demands that we might find in real world projects. If changing the fuel economy rules, or the minimum cockpit size - or even if they decided to make us carry two full size passengers and a donkey in the back - would make us reassess our designs and adjust accordingly then the educational objective is achieved.

When I was competing I always enjoyed listening to heated rules arguments - mainly because I knew that those doing the arguing were showing the least ability to make objective decisions. And therefore they were leaving themselves wide open to be hammered in all those aspects that aren't "real racing" like fuel economy, presentation, etc.

Of course my opinion will probably be considered biased, given that the new fuel economy rule is exactly in line with the direction we headed 5 years ago. But if for some reason a new rule would be introduced that would render the RMIT car uncompetitive, then the team would be encouraged to do the same thing it has been encouraged to do for the last 5 years. Take an objective view of the competition as a whole, assess the point scoring potential and feasibility of proposed designs, and then make informed decisions based on sound engineering principles.

Agreed though that a significant change like this would be best flagged at least a full design cycle in advance. And agreed that all that super-trick stuff like rapid prototyped titanium or whatever it was doesn't really help the comp (although I'm yet to be convinced you need such stuff to take an overall win)

I think Fred's tyre idea is interesting. It might be hard to police, and given that many teams don't get to the stage of advanced testing it might be a moot point. But an interesting idea to get us thinking all the same.

And Pete, my apologies for not attending to this earlier, but my heartiest congratulations to you and your whole team for finally potting the big one. Well deserved I must say, your car and team have been an inspiration for us for as long as I have been involved. I'm sure it is a relief for your good self and your own team, and a fitting tribute to the hard work put in by the UWA crew over the years (Kev, Nick, Guz, etc etc.) Cheers, and say gidday to Neil for us (you should bring him round for a couple of beers in November, we'd love to see him again). http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Cheers all,

[murpia]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by flavorPacket:
There is a huge disconnect between the design judges and the rules people, and it's absurd that we have to serve two masters, as it were. It is not like this in any other motorsports series because the rules committee is the only relevant body. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If I remember right the Design Judges are responsible for 150 points out of 1000. It's up to the team to decide how / where to focus it's engineering. A big problem from my perspective is that when asked, 9 teams out of 10 can't present a competition points vs. team resource trade-off analysis.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And please show me the real racing series where the front suspension and driver's legs must occupy the same longitudinal position while complying with a template as big as the one we have to meet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't recall a rule stating the drivers legs have to be in front of the front axle... That's just a free design choice.

Regards, Ian

[flavorPacket]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by murpia:
I don't recall a rule stating the drivers legs have to be in front of the front axle... That's just a free design choice.

Regards, Ian </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

you're right! we could just have a 90 inch wheelbase, or a go kart...why didn't I think of that?

But regardless of the challenges of FSAE front suspension packaging, my point was that people are making the flawed argument that 'FSAE has rules like real racing, so fuel economy should be part of FSAE rules, too'. In real racing the cars are designed to be safe/cheap/entertaining, NOT challenging to design (at least not directly). This is not a valid parallel to draw.

When less than 1/2 the field completes the competition, why make the competition harder?

[Wes Johnson]

http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/90D889BE209613...ONS%2011-07-2008.pdf (http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/90D889BE20961303C1257483004B8AC0/$FILE/1-2009%20F1%20TECHNICAL%20REGULATIONS%2011-07-2008.pdf)

PAGE 37.

Appears that the new rules are lifted almost verbatim from the F1 rulebook.

-Wes

[Matt N]

So you will learn more, and be better off for the experience.

[rjwoods77]

Wes,

As are most of the rules, including diagrams are out of the SCCA rulebook. So if the judges are making safety rules based off of F1 and SCCA it doesnt take much to make the connection that things affecting those series will tumble down on to this one which I think is relavent to what this series is about along even though some of it is a tad overboard but that is expected considering how the series has been taken advantage of over the years.

Flavor,

90 inch wheelbase? If we switched to a single we could do feet behind the axle with a wheelbase of 65 inch. For some reason some teams has this love affair with longitudal engines with a geared diff. Nothing stoppping them from doing a sidewinder with a short wheelbase and feet behind the front axle. Deakin is another example. Worked with UIUC back in the day even though it was transverse and with a solid axle. I am fairly sure they did real good with it to even if it understeered like a bitch.

http://mechse.uiuc.edu/clubs/sae/Formula/pics/1995s/1995s.php

No reason with some development it couldnt be done today. Then again you have to have an open mind but thats another story. Many was to skin a cat and some are better then the normal way at least in my opinion. Also form a consistant thought along with your complaining masked as an argument/discussion if you are trying to pass it off as one. Your hole to China that you are digging just gets deeper.

[flavorPacket]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wes Johnson:
http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/90D889BE209613...ONS%2011-07-2008.pdf (http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/90D889BE20961303C1257483004B8AC0/$FILE/1-2009%20F1%20TECHNICAL%20REGULATIONS%2011-07-2008.pdf)

PAGE 37.

Appears that the new rules are lifted almost verbatim from the F1 rulebook.

-Wes </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes, except that the Y template is 50mm larger in both directions...and the front suspension goes in front of the templates.

[rjwoods77]

On the UIUC note:

I always thought a neat idea would be a combination of that car and the brown gokart which I still have yet to pics of. Anyone got any? Side mount engine what ever it may be. Driver sits up agains the roll hoop with a solid axle rear with a 4 link and panhard/watts/mumford link. The 4 longitudal links would attach at the front roll hoop like they do in a 600 srpint car. Then run a beam axle front with whatever built in camber you want and attach the 4 trailing links to the front roll hoop as well. All of you suspension forces minus the shocks would attach in the same longitudal plane and frame would be a joke for how light it would be since there really would be much torsion on the frame except from the shocks. Even then if you got creative you could run pullrods and rocker arms to the front roll hoop area much like on the Novakar Rakavon F500. Just a crazy though but you could do some damage with a car like that especially with a cvt.

[flavorPacket]

great, Rob. Go spend another 3 years building that while real engineers go work on the DETAILS of a developed platform.

We can all come up with crazy ideas (maybe not as crazy as yours). But some of us like execution and optimization more than concept generation. It doesn't mean we have closed minds, just that we're different people.

[Tech Guy]

Wes,
Smart observation. I believe that a number of the Formula SAE Rules Committee are scrutineers for the US F1 Grand Prix at Indianapolis or work in Formula 1. So we now know where the new template rules come from.

flavorPacket,
When was the last time you stood alongside an F1 driver? They have size 8 feet, not 12's or 13's, and are only about 5'6" to 5'8" tall, not 6'1 2/2" like Percy!

Geoff,
Your comments are succinct and balanced as usual. Nicely said.

It's interesting that it appears from this thread that several of the Aussie teams have bitten the bullet and will have cars that meet the new templates for the event in Oz in November.

[flavorPacket]

Tech Guy,

The last time I stood alongside a F1 driver was this summer in Montreal. Let me assure you, Robert Kubica does not have size 8 feet.

[Prohet][]

The problem I guess for Australian teams is that if we want to compete overseas we need to have this years car comply with next years rules.

We build cars for our competition in Nov/Dec then take then overseas the next year. Teams here dont' build cars for the US or Formula Student comps and then enter then in Aus.

[Barnaby]

Yeah, certainly the average F1 driver is no where near the size of a 95th percentile male, but there are a few that are pretty tall (remember Justin Wilson a couple years ago was 6' 3"). And judging from the size limitations on entrants in a Phillips/Williams contest to drive an F1 car they come close to Fitting from 5th percentile female to 95th percentile male (100kg max, 159cm-186cm height, but a fairly limiting max shoe size of 10 UK):
http://www.attwilliams.philips.com/en-GB/gloproterms.html

but any back on topic, seems like they should be able to release the rules a bit earlier, but the templates have been defined for a while (assuming they don't change them), and the fuel economy change can be dealt with reasonably further into build with better tuning not to mention that they are actually giving us a bit more room (29 vs. 26 liters/100km)before the score "drops steeply" however you wish to interpret that
-Barnaby

[MrSwa]

They have posted an Overview.


FORMULA SAE
RULES CHANGES FOR 2009

For the benefit of the teams, below is a summary of the major rules changes for the 2009 Formula SAE competitions. It is not a complete list and is not binding. If there are any differences between this summary and the official rules, the Rules will prevail. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the competitors to read the published Rules thoroughly.

Rule # System Change
3.1.5 - Cockpit - Templates for the cockpit opening and pass-through to the pedals.

3.2.5 - Brakes - In side view, no brake components on the sprung part of car can project below the bottom of the frame or tub.

3.2.6 - Jacking Point - The accessibility requirement is made clarified.

3.3.2 - SEF's - SEF's will b required from ALL teams even if the team "has nothing to declare"�. There will also be penalties for late submission.

3.3.3 - Frame - None of the components that comprise the "Primary Structure"� can utilize welded titanium construction.

3.3.4 - Helmet Line - The 50.8 mm (2 inch) clearance line rearwards of the Main Hoop will be clarified.

3.3.4.1 - "Percy Rule"� - Specific penalty in Design Event for not meeting the rule.

3.3.5.1 - Main Hoop Bracing - Clarification as to how the bracing loads must be transmitted back to the Main Hoop.

3.3.6.4 - IA Data Report - Test data will be required with the added requirement that the peak decel. cannot exceed 40g. Also penalties for late submission.

3.4.1. - Shoulder Harness Bar - Gussets or braces required for any cantilevered bar.

3.4.4 - Head Restraint - Clarification on location and position relative to the helmet.

3.4.6.1 - Steering Wheel - Clarification of "near oval"� shape (no concavities in the profile).

3.5.3 - Fuel Tanks - "Bag"� fuel tanks or fuel cell bladders must be in a rigid container. Rigid fuel tanks cannot carry a structural load.

3.5.3.9 - Fuel Tanks - Clarify the required rear impact protection

3.7.4 - Gas Cylinders - Clarify that gas cylinders are not allowed in the cockpit.

4.3 - Cost & Manufacturing Event - Significant changes to the Cost Report and other items. (See a separate announcement for more details).

5.7 - Endurance & Fuel Economy - Increase the points available for Fuel Economy to 100; decrease the points available for Endurance to 300. Cancel the 4 minute penalty but allow the FE score to go negative with a new formula.

6 Possible 2010 Changes
Restructure the space frame rules. This will not change the essential requirements of these rules but should make them easier to understand.
List the expectations for composite chassis and carbon fibre space frames.
For drivers under the Main Hoop, require 4 ins minimum clearance above helmet to u/side of Main Hoop or padding.
Limit the seat back angle to 30 degrees from the vertical. (Could be 2011).


Michael Royce
Chairman,
FSAE Rules Committee.
July 29th 2008


Sorry if the formating is all jacked. I tried to fix it to read at least somewhat easy.

[Moke]

7.1 And no more happyness

[nabjab]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">3.2.5 - Brakes - In side view, no brake components on the sprung part of car can project below the bottom of the frame or tub </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In our design we have a "bumper" of sorts that protect anything under the nose of our car. Our nose is raised. the bumber extends vertically below the main section of the frame at the front bulkhead. My questions is what defines the bottom of frame? Our loset point on the frame are the bars under our butt. Yet, our brake system sits under the lower front suspension rails (which are raised, and protected).

-nabjab

[SNasello]

nabjab, you should either wait until the official rules come out, which will most likely have a more thorough explanation, or submit a question to the rules committee (see rules for details), they are the only ones who will be able to answer your question.

I hope this means that the rule pertaining to the driver having to raise his knees to his chest while seated will no longer be included.

[Mike Macie]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nabjab:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">3.2.5 - Brakes - In side view, no brake components on the sprung part of car can project below the bottom of the frame or tub </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In our design we have a "bumper" of sorts that protect anything under the nose of our car. Our nose is raised. the bumber extends vertically below the main section of the frame at the front bulkhead. My questions is what defines the bottom of frame? Our loset point on the frame are the bars under our butt. Yet, our brake system sits under the lower front suspension rails (which are raised, and protected).

-nabjab </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mr. Royce explained this change to us at the MIS event. You will not be allowed to have any brake components below any part of the frame. Even though your frame is lower in another spot, it still will not be allowed. You will have to send in a clarification about your "bumper"

[Maverick]

do you have any information regarding 2009 fsae events.

[Brian S]

2009 Event Schedule (http://www.sae.org/servlets/pressRoom?OBJECT_TYPE=PressReleases&PAGE=showCDSNews&EVENT=FORMULA&RELEASE_ID=853)

[The AFX Master]

Any pics of 09 compliant cars already made?.. yes i know that everyone is designing for 09 now but, some people like TUG (?) have their 09 machines already running

[Tilman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The AFX Master:
Any pics of 09 compliant cars already made?.. yes i know that everyone is designing for 09 now but, some people like TUG (?) have their 09 machines already running </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

TU Graz starts active development of their 09 car in October. I asked them in Hockenheim last weekend.

[Moke]

We have some pictures on our website of our 09 chassis next to our 07 car.

[frenzy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pete Marsh:
Michael Royce made it clear at MIS the templates will be included in the new rules due out soon. There is at least one small change which is a 50mm wide slot half way down the centre of the foot box template to allow it to pass steering coloums easy during tech </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

so the new Y-template would look something like this?
http://www.fastda.de/cad/Y-temp.jpg ?

Our frame team didn't realize the pages 104+ so our frame has to be significantly altered :/

[j bakker]

i asked for clarification on bearings etc.

here is the response i got:
"Dear Jeremy,

Any bearings, bushing, column brackets, column supports, UJ's, etc. will have to fit within the 50 mm wide slot or the 50 mm radius cut-outs (there will be one at the bottom as well as at the top of Template "Y"�).

If the structure is less than 50 mm wide and on center, it will pass.

Basically, we will modify the template as noted above, and then this revised template has to pass past everything except the steering wheel and any padding required by Rule 3.4.14.

We hope this explains things."

so it will look like yours frenzy but with the cutouts and slot top and bottom

[frenzy]

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

so it will look like yours frenzy but with the cutouts and slot top and bottom </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


but if the slot goes all the way through the template..then we have like 2 templates with no connection in the middle?

[Matt N]

I asked for a rules clarification on the new fuel economy rules and the cut-and-pasted text below highlights the important parts. It seems that the 29L instead of 26L/100km was a mistake - the 26L value stays in the formula. They said the 2009 rules should be up in a few days. Enjoy!

8.22.1 If Vyour is less than Vmax then the following equation will be used to determine the fuel economy score:

FUEL ECONOMY SCORE =

If Vyour is greater then Vmax then the following equation will be used to determine a negative fuel economy score.
FUEL ECONOMY SCORE = -

Where:
Vmax is the volume of fuel that produces a fuel consumption of 26 liters/ 100 km. Note - For an Endurance Event distance of exactly 22 km, Vmax is 5.72 liters (1.51 US gallons)."�
Vmin is the smallest volume of fuel used by any competitor
Vyour is the volume of fuel used by the team being scored

8.22.2 Vehicles using a fuel volume which exceeds Vmax by 33% will score negative one hundred (-100) points.

8.22.5 Fuel economy scores can range from negative one hundred (-100) to positive one hundred (100) points.

[Matt N]

I guess that didn't work. Lets try again:

8.22.1 If Vyour is less than Vmax then the following equation will be used to determine the fuel economy score:

FUEL ECONOMY SCORE = 100 X ([(Vmax/Vyour)-1]/[(Vmax/Vmin)-1])

If Vyour is greater then Vmax then the following equation will be used to determine a negative fuel economy score.

FUEL ECONOMY SCORE = -100 X ([(Vyour/Vmax)-1]/0.33)^1.5

Sorry about that.

[Brian S]

2009 rules are out

http://www.sae.org/images/cds/220553967_2009%20FSAE%20Rules%20FINAL.pdf

[JR @ CFS]

Just had a quick scan...no real shockers is there? Apart from the cost report of course...oh and fuel economy...but we've known about those for a while.

[Rickertsen2]

Whats with this incomplete cost website? You wouldn't start serving coffee in a coffee shop while the walls are still being erected. Websites are no different. I'm a little afraid of whats to come.

[Mechei]

Hi guys... I am member of a team from India.Just need a clarification.In new rules for impact attenuator, it states:
"The team must submit test data to show that their Impact Attenuator, when mounted on the
front of a vehicle with a total mass of 300 kgs (661 lbs) and run into a solid, non-yielding
impact barrier with a velocity of impact of 7.0 metres/second (23.0 ft/sec), would give an
average deceleration of the vehicle not to exceed 20 g's, with a peak deceleration less than or equal to 40 g's"

Does it mean that we have to attach our IA to original chasis?? or drop test data are sufficient??

[screwdriver]

No. You just need to attach a 300kg weight to the IA for the test.

[Tech Guy]

A couple of months ago, there were some postings claiming that the new cockpit template rules would make the cars look like “whales”. It appears that several cars at the recent FSAE-A competition were built to the 2009 Rules even though they did not have to be, and Mr. Royce took the opportunity to check them out. SAE has just published a note from him on the results of the checks. It can be found at:
http://www.sae.org/servlets/pr...RMULA&RELEASE_ID=930 (http://www.sae.org/servlets/pressRoom?OBJECT_TYPE=PressReleases&PAGE=showCDSNews&EVENT=FORMULA&RELEASE_ID=930)

There are a couple of good tips included. And the cars did not look like “whales”!

If you click on the “additional information” button at the bottom of the entry, it is easier to read.

[MalcolmG]

I believe that we were car "D", failed the cockpit opening due to our brake balance adjuster and the cross section due to our electrons and throttle cable. We didn't make any real effort to ensure that auxillary systems like these didn't interfere with the templates since all we were really trying to do was ensure that our basic design would pass the templates, as there was no need to meet the rules at FSAE-A. I would strongly agree with Michael's advice to teams that they should be mindful of these things throughout the year, it would be reasonably annoying to be trying to re-route your wiring and throttle cable at the competition so that you don't lose the 35 points (or whatever it is) that you'll be penalised for not fitting the templates.

Some other brief notes that may be of use to some of you - we designed our monocoque to be 10mm wider internally than the templates. If you bolt through your tub for suspension points then you'll probably need to allow more room for a nut and 2 threads. Also, our front roll hoop was built with about 2mm allowance for the laminate that secures it - may be wise to allow more room than this - just in case.

[Yellow Ranger]

Malcom,

What did they use for the template? Like a 3/4" plywood cut out? I noticed that two of teams where having issues with the column support, and that's what we're having issues with. If the template that they use is just hand held and pushed through the cockpit, allowing it to slightly move up and down to clear the column support then the steering rack, we should be fine- but if is a much thicker piece that would simulate a direct pass of the template, we may have some issues.


Just curious on what you guys experienced from Mr. Royce.

[MalcolmG]

I can't actually remember what it was made of, but it wouldn't have been any thicker than about 20mm. It can move up and down as it goes through. We only just managed to make our column support high enough to clear. I think next year we'll make the cockpit a bit larger around those areas and use removable padding to try and make it conform to the driver better. There were details in our monocoque that were reasonably unnecessary in hindsight, and only helped make things with the template more difficult.

[Michael Royce]

The trial templates we have been using to date have been cut out of corrugated cardboard.

The thickness of the ones for the 2009 competitions will depend on what material we end up using. We have to consider cost, durability and portability with 3 US competitions. They will not fit in my suitcase like Percy does! We might have to make 3 for the US, 1 for each competition rather than ship 1 set around the country.

The choices seem to be 1/4" plywood or 3/16" aluminum sheet. Although Bill Riley did offer to make a set out of carbon fiber. But that was before we started talking about possibly needing 3 sets!

I would assume that the overseas competitions will follow our lead.