Engine Rule Change

[OmniscientGT]

As Students, we've had our imaginations hemmed in by simplistic engine regulations. In reality, in order to remain competitive, what engine choices does a team have? So we begrudgingly accept such stipulations and attempt to design unique packages around the standard engine. Has it not occurred to rule makers that giving every team extremely similar starting places (i.e. engine), they ultimately reduce the number of innovative answers? It similar to asking identical DNA strands to grow into many different people! Isn't this competition centered around innovation and bringing those ideas to fruition (and then proving its worth)?

We need DYNAMIC rules in order for students to explore their ideas! I realize the difficulty in developing such rules. Looking to generate results by manipulating and restricting the inputs of an infinitely complex process is daunting to say the least. So I put it to the schools and their team members, the processors of those inputs...

How can we open up engine restrictions and ensure competitiveness between classes? How can we ensure similar levels of safety? What factors can we restrict on different engines? The list is interminable.

If we want to play with different engines, the process begins here.

[OmniscientGT]

As Students, we've had our imaginations hemmed in by simplistic engine regulations. In reality, in order to remain competitive, what engine choices does a team have? So we begrudgingly accept such stipulations and attempt to design unique packages around the standard engine. Has it not occurred to rule makers that giving every team extremely similar starting places (i.e. engine), they ultimately reduce the number of innovative answers? It similar to asking identical DNA strands to grow into many different people! Isn't this competition centered around innovation and bringing those ideas to fruition (and then proving its worth)?

We need DYNAMIC rules in order for students to explore their ideas! I realize the difficulty in developing such rules. Looking to generate results by manipulating and restricting the inputs of an infinitely complex process is daunting to say the least. So I put it to the schools and their team members, the processors of those inputs...

How can we open up engine restrictions and ensure competitiveness between classes? How can we ensure similar levels of safety? What factors can we restrict on different engines? The list is interminable.

If we want to play with different engines, the process begins here.

[Charlie]

I disagree.

The rules might seem simple but in reality they are just about the most open in any racing series.

I've worked on powertrain for several years, yet haven't brushed the surface of what can be done with the rule set we have now.

I will agree that teams like Cornell have run the same basic engine package for years, refining it, and that gives them a huge advantage, almost seems as if no-one can equal them. That is the only reason I can see for dynamic rules, because the playing field is more level. I don't think that's a good reason to change though, as has been shown teams can become contenders in just a few years.

But to say that the rules make the problem simplistic, well I would guess that if you think that you haven't tried it yet.

Or maybe you are just WAY smarter than me. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[OmniscientGT]

Thanks for the reply...
You are right, I'm new to FSAE and have only begun scratching the surface. At this point I'm getting a feel for people think about certain issues concerning the competition.

Does it seem that teams spend too much or too little time developing their engine package? How does any team know they are developing in a positive direction? Are our metrics skewed to the point of blinding teams of reality?

This is all neither here nor there, but fun to think about when bored.

[Charlie]

Typically new teamers want to try to crazy stuff and new ideas that will blow everyone out of the water. But soon they realize how difficult it is to get a basic setup working reliably and well.

Innovation is great, but it almost always comes at the expense of development and testing time. And even then sometimes it might prove to be a move in the wrong direction.

I'm not knocking innovation, I would have really liked to play with turbo-charging and different engine configurations. But I do know that even without a lot of innovation our team has come to competition with a poor powertrain design that caused us to fail endurance. And it was my design, and that sucks.

Innovation generally comes in small doses, but I would guess most of the top cars have some sort of innovative feature that helps them get to the level they are.

You can run singles, V-twins, Inline-3, Inline-4, Anything you can scrounge up with pistons and 610cc limit. You can run naturally aspirated, supercharged, turbocharged. You can chose any type of transmission you want. You can run three different fuels. Internal modifications are unlimited. Still think the rules are restrictive? http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Eddie Martin]

Omniscient GT,

I don't really understand your point. Formula SAE is the most open and unrestricted form of motorsport in the world. There are so many combinations that can be used for your engine package it is not funny.

Formula SAE is probably one of the hardest things you will ever do in your life and it is not something that should be taken lightly. For a first year team you need to keep it simple and get the car done really early, for the USA competition I'd aim at having the car running in early January.

If you can get a very reliable and reasonably light weight package that would have near 60 hp at the rear wheels and that is driveable and uses around 4 litres in the enduro with a first year engine package, assuming a 4 cylinder engine, you will have done an amazing job.

[DontAsk]

The engine rules are great for a team willing to really make an effort to do real engine development. I'm not sure about the other teams but the senior members of my team do not want to try anything that they percieve as risky.

Which pretty much means we'll likely be bolting in a bone stock motor. I'm a newbie, so I really have no say in the direction of our team. I'll be lucky if I am allowed to sweep the floors at this point.

[Jon @ Electromotive, Inc.]

After thinking about this a bit, I have decided that what boils down to a "simplistic", few-choices rule is there for the purposes of saftey and cost saving.

With the most obvious choice of a 600cc sportbike engine, it is "easy" for a new team to simply grab an engine off ebay, throw on a restrictor and have an engine ready for competition. At the same time, it prevents estabilshed teams with more money and experience to build from coming in with a turbo-charged rotory or 2-stroke making (lets pretend this can happen through a 20mm restrictor) 150hp and potentially hurting some people.

While I grant that it prevents experiementing with alternate forms of internal combustion, there are plenty of things that can be done to increase power/reliablility from the ol' four banger.

Long story short: Easier (though still daunting) for 1st,2nd,3rd year teams to be competitive in the beginning. Saves lives, brings world piece (no 2-stroke vs 4-stroke or recprocating vs rotary arguments/fights http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ), arguably reduces costs to competitors. Maintains plenty of room for innovations.

I think I made my point, maybe even a couple of times, I'll be quiet for a little while.

[jack]

i agree with steve. along those lines, when i look at other racing formulas that allow very different engine formulas and try to make them all equal, by adjusting displacement and such, it seems after a while a superior engine configuration allways surfaces. f1 in the 80's is a great example. i think it would be awsome if rotary engines were allowed, but after a while they would become clearly superior (or inferior) and the rules would have to be constantly adjusted. this would really screw with most teams i think.

i am excited about rmit winning with a single, however, and about the research some schools are doing on singles. in ten years what will the cars look like? half the field singles? this seemed to have mixed up a self-spec'ed one engine series up a bit.


but hey, "fifth cycle" engines are still legal right?

[VFR750R]

I know that we have awesome engine rules....basically none, but I always wondered how great it would be to have a 1000cc or maybe higher limit instead of 610cc. It gives dozens more choices without really increasing the hp potential...restrictors being the same.
That said the torque would definitly be up, so corner exits should be funner http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif but shouldn't make the car significantly more dangerous. Choking would be sooner and you can look at that any way you like. It would probably be alot of work getting a 1000cc 4 to handle less then half the hp though.

I'm just saying it may allow for some discovery outside the 600cc 4 without the hp disadvantage of the single.

[Igor]

Why would you want to hump around a 1000cc engine on your car? It's probably around 80kg and you will get less power out of it than a 600cc engine. You might get a small increase at low rpm, but you will suffer much more internal losses at higher rpm. If a single cylinder car can do a 4.12s acceleration you really don't need that much more horsepower.

Igor

[Matthew Robinson]

1000cc with the same restrictor would be a difficult package

probably make more power from a turbo'ed 600cc

Those damn cornell guys with there damn powerful engine :-)

[Charlie]

I would probably agree that the 1000cc engine would not be a great choice.

However that begs the question, why have a displacement limit at all? It would be interesting to have choices above 600cc, and another compromise would have to be made. Effectively, the restrictor and engine mass would keep power levels from getting crazy.

[PipeBom]

Well I think that if the tracks were bigger and faster, then there would be a need to go for bigger engine capacity, or maybe increasing the restrictor size. But there is no point in allowing bigger engine size on small tight tracks.

[RiNaZ]

Maybe it's time to change to a bigger and faster track and have real races http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif (wishful thinking http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

[Charlie]

It already happened in 2004... I doubt they will take it further but the formula changed this year.

[Eddie Martin]

I don't understand why there is a constant push to make the tracks faster. The 2004 course was quite fast but after the two incidents in the practice track this year I think it will go back to a slightly slower course next year. Remember we are students building a racing car under the banner of a university; safety is only going to get more important.
Formula SAE is a unique challenge in motorsport, if you want an open wheeler that has a higher average speed go and drive a Formula Ford. Formula SAE is excellent the way it is.

[Denny Trimble]

This year's course was still slower than an SCCA national level autocross. I see no reason to change back to the 2003 type autocross course, where our max speed was 38mph.

So I'll agree, FSAE is great as-is, especially if the courses stay the same as they were in 2004.

[J. Schmidt]

So you want to use a bigger engine? I have one word...gixxerkart (http://nurburgring.de/eventdetails.php3?id=7&event=000101_v&lang=eng)

If larger engines were allowed what size restrictor would you expect to see? The same 20mm would likely change for these larger engines in order to maintain the safety factor. So you add the weight, restriction, and minimal horsepower...you didn't make any progress. Try using smaller engines, they perform better under restricion anyway.

Personally I would like to see 2 different classes in the FSAE competition; kind of like aero-design's open class/regular class. FSAE's open class can include rotory or 2-cycle engines, mabye larger displacement fours. This would give the more established teams lots more options and room to stretch their legs while giving the newer teams more fair competition (I'm not whining, really. I'd love to have a sponsorship bracket that goes over $1000 http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif).

[Charlie]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by J. Schmidt:
If larger engines were allowed what size restrictor would you expect to see? The same 20mm would likely change for these larger engines in order to maintain the safety factor. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why? It is not displacement dependent now. Airflow basically equals horsepower, no matter what size is behind it. It would not make any sense to restrict a larger engine further.

Like I said if you look at using a bigger engine without a restrictor it looks like not so great an idea. So why not remove the displacement restriction? I can think of a couple 650-700cc engines that would be fun to work with.

[DontAsk]

Well I can imagine that if they removed the displacement restrictions they might as well remove other restrictions as well.

I'd like to see fuels be unrestricted.

Although it might get a little scary when the guys came out in the hazmat clothes and respirators because of benzene. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Additionally, leave the restrictor at 20mm, and let us run nitromethane. That could really make the acceleration contests interesting. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif It would really challenge the teams to figure out how to put the power to the ground.

I think it's a good thing that spec fuels are used and both the displacement and the restrictor rules are in place, although I think a 750cc limit could be appropriate to open the field of available motors. Another possible method to level the playing field would to require 1 pound of vehicle (and driver) weight per cc of displacement.

The rules are pretty good as they stand, and although I'd love to see an unrestricted motor with 1 pound of weight per cc of displacement, the cars would become a little more exciting than the community at large would care for!

[Eddie Martin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Denny Trimble:
I see no reason to change back to the 2003 type autocross course, where our max speed was 38mph. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree that the 2003 Autocross course was too slow. But taking into account the varying standard of cars i think a fast course like 2004 is probably not the safest.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Originally posted by J. Schmidt:
Personally I would like to see 2 different classes in the FSAE competition <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
As for having two classes i don't see the point. While i don't think it is quite possible for a first year team to win the competition, they could finish in the top ten, a second or third year team should be able to finish in the top five or top three.

Gixxerkart is very cool. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Thats just my two cents. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[J. Schmidt]

I'd only like to see the two classes if larger/different powerplants are allowed. As in any form of racing, eventually all teams will be running the same motor; FSAE found a niche with the 600cc motorcycle engine. Sure teams have developed single cylinders and made them work, fabricated their own V8's, etc. but those are anomolies. I know the point of this competition is to find something that works and make it work well. Just read the thread on "the ideal FSAE engine," everyone would like to use something different.

If all cars were to follow the same formula, regardless of engine used, then we'll either have a field full if gixxerkarts, big motor in a small frame, or low-displacement engines in large, heavy cars that can't perform worth a darn. These cars need to be safe, and if performance numbers jump then the cars will need to be made safer. After all, the restrictors were made smaller some time ago to slow the cars down. Perhaps I just havn't researched the many possibilities available to us currently, but I feel that if the engine restrictions are loosened a new class should be considered. I'd like to hear some opposing viewpoints, or some support would be nice too.

[Eddie Martin]

J. Schmidt
I don't think you can say that single cylinders are anomalies; they will only get more popular.

I agree that a small part of fsae is to innovate, but the reason fsae exists is to give university students practical experience in an engineering project. It teaches us about management and organisation, design, manufacture, timelines, budgets etc etc. so when we get into the real world we hit the ground running.

[BryanH]

Quote;
-----------------------------------------------

Sure teams have developed single cylinders and made them work, fabricated their own V8's, etc. but those are anomolies
J. Schmidt

-----------------------------------------------

Maybe you have the cart before the horse here,

Teams like Delft, RMIT, etc have read the rulebook, particularly the first page and the section on racetrack dimensions and have come up with what they think is a winning solution.

If you want safe I'm sure your uni has a chess club you can join. just watch those nasty paper cuts.


F-sae is a fantastic set of rules that don't need fixing, just reading, and thinking.......

Running 2 classes would take away from both,segregate, 2 winners? no winners.

btw, It is physically impossible for the gixxerkart to LAP faster than a 135cc formula A kart around an f-sae track and therein lies a secret.
Bryan Hester

[J. Schmidt]

I'm not arguing that the current rules need changing, I think they're great just the way they are. I read the rules throughly and exploit any gaps I can find. We're a new team with few senior engineers...we'll take any advantage we can get.

And I'm not the one who changes the rules to make them safer, that's up to the rules commitee; I just follow them. And I'll admit I was jumping to conclusions with the single cylinder comment. But if single cylinder engines always worked as well as RMIT's everybody would be using them.

We've got good forums here, Halfast, don't start flaming.

[Denny Trimble]

I think about 25% of the 4-cylinders in Detroit "work well".

I think the only barriers to more teams using singles are availability of the engines (minor difficulty), the risk of trying something new, and the cost of throwing away knowledge specific to 4-cylinder cars.

[Charlie]

As a new team you should not be dismissing the single prospect so easily. I don't think Halfast is flaming you either. Saying that 'everyone would be using them' if they worked is pretty ignorant of the several possibilities out there especially with RMIT's sucess staring you in the face.

Like Denny said most good teams have a lot invested in the I4 configuration I know we do. I looked into a lot of different engines last year, but not wholehartedly. It would take a major breakthrough for us to give up the F4i. We've got 3 of them now, plenty of knowledge and spare parts. We can develop the F4i much easier than a new engine. But as a new team that is the advantage you have: flexibility.

[DontAsk]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Charlie:
As a new team you should not be dismissing the single prospect so easily. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm involved with a team that should be acting like a new team. Unfortunately, I think that the only way our team has a chance is to proceed with parallel development with both our 2005 and 2006 cars.

I don't hold out much hope for our 2005 entry, I'll be impressed if we have a rolling chassis by Feb 1st. Our team should be considering new ideas with regard to engine selection as well as other aspects of the car. I don't see that happening with our 2005 car.

When your team has nothing to lose, you might as well distinguish yourself through innovation. Showing up with a poor copy of UTA or Cornell's last winning entry is hardly worth doing.

Funny thing is that I don't think it's the actual application of technology that separates the entrants. I think the best organized teams that finish their cars early are the ones who really have a chance at winning the competition.

Actual testing and development of the car is the most critical aspect of the competition.

[Nate Notta]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DontAsk:
When your team has nothing to lose, you might as well distinguish yourself through innovation. Showing up with a poor copy of UTA or Cornell's last winning entry is hardly worth doing.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sometimes that's not the best approach... of course the right thing to say is that innovation is everything... but trying to be innovative and not having your car working until the day of the competition every season really sucks.

I think the best thing for a new-ish team to do is get the simplest possible car running early, and running well - then develop it year by year, little by little.
Otherwise you may have great ideas that don't see the track, every year.

Nate

[Matt Gignac]

Perhaps a little off topic, but how many teams ran a turbo this year? To my knowledge, there was Cornell and us (McGill).

Part of the reason I'm bringing this up is that I'm curious about how many teams run turbos. Mainly though, I'm bringing this up because here we are talking expanding the number of available engines or power levels or whatever, and so few teams make full use of the options we have for engine development now (ie the turbo among other things).

Obviously the benefits and downsides of the turbocharger are debateable, but I personally see them as being more or less the same as a larger displacement engine, assuming there's still the same restrictor of course. Both alternatives would provide more torque lower in the powerband, but at the expence of choked flow coming along sooner. Also, both add probably more or less the same amount of weight (let's say 15 or so lbs., maybe a bit more for a 750).

My 0.02$

Matt Gignac
McGill Racing Team

[Frank]

just a comment on engines...

our specs

49% front weight
spool
traction / launch control
217 kg
76Hp @ 10200 rpm @ output shaft (Motec's own dyno)

4.05 sec acceleration run

turbos and massive horsepower isn't necc. ALL you need to go fast in a straight line

i believe delft came second in acceleration at formula student with 4.13 sec

now.. back to those plans for the single

personally, i'd love to see the restrictor opened up to 22mm, and faster courses

[DontAsk]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NateNantais:

Sometimes that's not the best approach... of course the right thing to say is that innovation is everything... but trying to be innovative and not having your car working until the day of the competition every season really sucks.

I think the best thing for a new-ish team to do is get the simplest possible car running early, and running well - then develop it year by year, little by little.
Otherwise you may have great ideas that don't see the track, every year.

Nate <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While I agree showing up with a car that doesn't work is not a good answer, our team has proven that it can show up with a non-working car year after year. As a matter of fact, I don't believe that our school has ever competed in a dynamic event ever. Although I don't have proof of that.

Our record is abysmal. I don't think it's because of a lack of effort though. I firmly believe that it's a lack of organization and the inability to set and meet important milestones.

Look at University of Western Australia. They are a young team that is taking the right approach. They are still being inovataive but they are trying to keep some aspects simple.

Deciding on a simple formula does not mean that you cannot be innovative. A CBR600 motor is a safe bet to be sure, but there isn't anything complex about specifying a different motor. A forced induction 250 while innovative is not by any means automatically complex. The same applies to using a 450cc single for weight savings or considering a 500cc twin or even an older 500cc V-four or even the NC35's V-4 400cc motor. Depending on packaging requirements these alternate choices could be interesting choices.

Different does not have to mean complex.

[Eddie Martin]

Just on rule changes I think in 2006, the rules for the differential will change. I think they want to "OPEN"� up this area. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[BryanH]

Quote;
-----------------------------------------------
I read the rules throughly and exploit any gaps I can find. We're a new team with few senior engineers...we'll take any advantage we can get.
Joe S.
------------------------------------------------

V. sorry, I didn't intend to convey the impression of looking for loopholes in the rules. I meant design the best solution to the rules and the track dimensions.
btw I raced karts for many years, sometimes V. fast, sometimes not, sometimes bending the rules,sometimes thinking the other guys must have killer engines. It took many years for us to suddenly realize what the hell was going on, and it was all about chassis balance, the trade off between grip and release off the turns.
engine power just needing to be adequate and that Rule bending or "demon tweaks" are just confusing an already complex situation.

The change to the detroit 04 track is interesting, They who will be obeyed did it to;

A: Better illustrate the time gap/dynamics btwn fast and slow cars?

B: Disadvantage/discourage single cylinder cars?

C: Make the event more attractive to Sponsors/Spectators?

D: teach a lesson to those teams who design a car to drive around the inside of the workshop!
I'm hoping it was A,C,and D.

RMIT 03's greatest attribute is mid corner speed in fast corners, just ask VinH

[Nate Notta]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eddie Martin:
Just on rule changes I think in 2006, the rules for the differential will change. I think they want to "OPEN"� up this area. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm, as long as we can still brake on the SPROTOR!
... although I'm sure they wouldn't allow it.

Nate

[Denny Trimble]

If the concept of the competition is to build an Autocross car, we should drive on an autocross course. Our car hits 80mph at local events, and probably 70mph last year at Nationals. I don't see why we should dumb-down the course for students; you should see the novices that run locally!

We should drive on a real autocross course, not some "kiddy course", and build cars to suit that.

Just my opinion.

[J. Schmidt]

As far as any rule changes, has anybody heard anything or are these just speculations?


And here I go on about safety again. Actually, UWP's former team captain mentioned this...
The 2003 track was much smoother. Mabye the track was roughened up to loosen the suspension on the cars and slow them down in the corners. All I know is that the design judges shook our car and were happy to see that it swayed and moved. They said some cars were solid as a rock when shook; not good on a washboard-like track. How many teams are planning on coming to the '05 competition with 2+ inches of real suspension travel after experiencing the '04 course?

[Igor]

Denny:
Would you honestly dare to drive an 80mph track in all of the cars you have seen at competition, especially the ones with crappy build quality? I have only been to a couple of competitions, but still I have seen cars rolling over, hitting hay-bails and suspensions breaking off. See another thread on (lack of) crash energy absorbtion to make it even more scary.
It may be a bit boring and I think 38mph might be a bit too cautious, but if a student is properly injured at one of the events there will be consequences. There is just too much at stake here.
At least you guys in the States can go to an SCCA meeting to have your fun.

Igor

[Schumi_Jr]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by J. Schmidt:
Mabye the track was roughened up to loosen the suspension on the cars and slow them down in the corners. All I know is that the design judges shook our car and were happy to see that it swayed and moved. They said some cars were solid as a rock when shook; not good on a washboard-like track.QUOTE]

I took the opportunity to bump and roll Cornell and UTA's cars at this years design finals and was suprised at how stiff they were. These car's seemed pretty quick to me on the '04 FSAE endurance and autocross tracks http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Denny- I'm with you on the speed issue. It's possible to set up a fast track while maintaining safety- there just has to be sufficient run off area for fast corners and at the end of long straights. SCCA events clearly show this is possible.

Igor- I agree with you that most FSAE car's have insufficient frontal crush structures. I think that SAE should regulate chassis frontal impact bracing (like they do for side impact) and the front crush structure. Anyone care to share their thoughts on this?

[drivetrainUW-Platt]

all this talk about goin fast. Yeah fast is always fun in the right situations. but, most of us are engineering students, not race car drivers!! Ihave heard of teams that have thrown a driver in the car for the first time ever before endurance, I found this out after talkin to them about why they were goin so damn slow, apparently the driver had never used the pushbutton shifter controls and was in one gear all the way around the track. We are not designing you typical minivan here, controls are unique to each car, they all handle different ect ect ect...fsae is to teach kids how to design cars, not how to be pro racers, also, i think that the competition would be really looked down on if ppl were dieing all the time!!

[Frank]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I think that SAE should regulate chassis frontal impact bracing (like they do for side impact) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hmmm

[BryanH]

Hey Mike, there must be someone in Platteville who can make your car shine!

Ralph Nader never intended the "Nanny State' to apply to motorsport, Bloodsucking Lawyers saw to that in your country and It's happening here now. The Europeans have the right idea, building the worlds safest road cars, and happily letting its citizens do what they like offroad. If you write laws to protect idiots from themselves you will end up with a nation full of frightened idiots.
An f-sae track needs to be open enough to show up the qualities/defiencies of the cars. No car by itself will hurt anybody, its up to the driver to know his and the cars limitations.
You are meant to be designing/building a saleable autocross car. Everybody wants to buy the latest,fastest. No one wants a slow one.
Bryan Hester

[DontAsk]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by drivetrainUW-Platt:
all this talk about goin fast. Yeah fast is always fun in the right situations. but, most of us are engineering students, not race car drivers!! Ihave heard of teams that have thrown a driver in the car for the first time ever before endurance, I found this out after talkin to them about why they were goin so damn slow, apparently the driver had never used the pushbutton shifter controls and was in one gear all the way around the track. We are not designing you typical minivan here, controls are unique to each car, they all handle different ect ect ect...fsae is to teach kids how to design cars, not how to be pro racers, also, i think that the competition would be really looked down on if ppl were dieing all the time!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Putting an untrained driver in the car is inexcuseable at competition. Finally, racing is dangerous. If you are not willing to accept the risk, then don't get in the car. Additionally I think that even at higher speeds, a proper cage, nomex and a helmet offer plenty of protection. I would not have much fear of wrecking a properly built FSAE car. If I didn't like the engineering behind our car and felt it unsafe, I would not drive it. As professional (or soon to be) engineers you should be capable of designing a safe car and the inspectors should be able to recognize a car that is unsafe.

[J. Schmidt]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> most of us are engineering students, not race car drivers!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hey Duwe, you didn't go to Skip Barber with the rest of us, remember? Did you people know that in the Aero-Design competition they have professional RC fliers control the planes upon the team's request? Imagine if we could request professional racecar drivers to pilot our FSAE cars!

I do believe that the FSAE rules commitee knows that many teams have inadequate front crash protection: foot protection (http://www.sae.org/students/fsae-footprot.doc). The rules for the crushzone are a little vague "Must be capable of decelerating the car within an acceptable limit (pg 25, 3.3.6.3.A)," and can allow for some interpretation. I'm sure this will be made more specific in the near future.

[Denny Trimble]

I'm horrified that teams attempt to "learn to drive" at the competition. It takes our new people about 4 weekends before they stop looking like asses in the car, not to mention the safety risks. We keep them on a low-speed course with lots of runout until they're ready for the fast stuff.

I don't know if we need "qualifying", but I think more than 30 teams would finish endurance if more teams took testing and driver training seriously. Seriously enough to get the car done early...

[VFR750R]

Since most teams do have limited testing time, i think the current course is fine. As far as the 'novices' at SCCA autocrosses are concerned, they probably have a s&%tload more seat time in thier cars then the most experienced guys in FSAE do in ours.

Faster courses would also 'seperate the men from the boys' in horsepower which I don't think is in the spirit of the competition. Usable horsepower and reliability should still be the most important engine goals.

Faster courses would also encourage teams to practice faster courses which may not be safe in their location. I know our parking lots have lots of granite curbed medians and our 03 car got a real good look at one. It was a freak accident but faster courses seem like a recipe for more freak accidents in practice lots at other universities.

I see no benefit to faster courses and larger restrictors other then more fun, which I'm all for but it's hardly necessary considering how fast our cars are already.

As far as 1000cc engine rules. Same restrictors, same hp, 5-10 extra lbs(GSX-R's), and 75 ftlbs of torque http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[roadrunner]

Some teams just dont have the faculty backing, man power or cash flow behind them to attempt much more than a last minute un tested entry.

We were built in time for both the American and English competitions, yet un forseen circumstances led to a lack of running time.

I`m sure lots of teams have got problems regarding time scales of this and other projects. We are at uni at the same time.

As for our in experienced drivers (regarding experience in the car). Jiggy, as in James Gornell UK Formula Renault driver, Skint, as in Olly Joyce, runs his own race team and the other 2, Tom & Phil, both with enough car experience through club racing, karting, hill climbs and single seaters to do something funny (insert amusing line here!!!!!)

I totally agree that a lack of knowledge as regards drivers, the cars, the way they interact, is dangerous but some unis, if not all, take this extremely seriously and will attempt to minimise the risks involved.

Perhaps if the rules were changed as regards the test area at the event or if the events dynamic scrutineering included more than a simple brake test. Or all the drivers could show their ability at pulling away, cornering and stopping.

As for engines there is still loads of scope for exploration. Control systems, engine management, single cylinders, V-twins, all still requiring a lot of work.

[A Reinke]

no way the competition will ever open the engine size more. you've got little 600's making 115HP out of the showroom now, with the restrictor and a good setup 80+ HP is not far off N/A. our turbo gixxer 600 last year, with pump gas and mild timing, made 91 HP. that's enough!

i don't know about you guys, but i see the competition eventually lowering the engine size allowed to something like 500cc's basically requiring people to run small inline twins. they'll do this because we're going to get TOO fast for a safe competition.

i really don't want to see that, but...i just feel it may happen. hopefully i can stick around and keep up on FSAE even though i'm graduated.

~Adam

[John Bucknell]

As someone who has talked to many teams about their engine development, I'm going to have to say that there won't be any rules changes until many more teams demonstrate they understand what they are doing the powertrain arena. An engine is roughly as complex as the whole rest of the car, if not more so. Therefore it would seem logical that about half the effort expended on the car would be in the powertrain, but it seems to be about an order of magnitude less than that.

The assumption seems to be a 100 hp engine should run just fine on a restrictor with just manifolding changes. Truth is, there isn't a single restrictor-class engine out there that is the same inside as an unrestricted version. You all would do well to study the basics (despite the dearth of good literature on the subject) before advocating more exotic solutions. Why? Among the non-turbocharged engines (and that was north of 120) I saw, 98% of them were running at 50-80% of their potential. Yes, I only saw two that had done anything like a proper development on their engine.

Here's a few hints:

1. Cams and cylinder head changes - validate on the dyno, there is a lot there but you can just as easily go the wrong way
2. Flow benches are cheap and easy to use tools - develop your crazy spike throttles, heads, and INTAKE MANIFOLDS on them. A few manometers, some plywood, a calibrated orifice and a few vacuum cleaner motors are all you need.
3. Throttles are for throttling, don't design something that flows 90% of the maximum at 10% pedal movement
4. Map your fuelling and spark across the WHOLE operating range, not just at WOT. And bring the data to competition - judges love that.

Sorry for the rant, but I feel this is something most of you need to spend more time on.

[Kevin Hayward]

John,

Your point of the complexity of the engine is well noted. However the idea that 50% or so of our effort should go into engine development does not follow as being logical.

The powertrain systems while complex do not necessarily give the biggest returns in overall performance.

Rather I think there is probably scope for maybe 25% of the technical resources of the team ... roughly

25% Suspension & Dynamics
25% Chassis and Packaging
25% Engine & Powertrain

(The big three)

25% Everything Else (Maybe less for this)

...

However I definitely agree that there is no need for new engine rules ... there is just way too much to do with what we have no for any of us to get bored.

Kev

[Charlie]

I wish I knew that the judges cared about engine mapping. They never seemed very receptive to it before. We could have had some good stuff perpared in that arena this year. I always figured (based on judges reactions in the beginning) that the judges knew if you couldn't map properly your car would not perform well.

[John Bucknell]

Kevin,

I agree that half your effort invested in a relatively well developed engine would be wasteful. My point was that as a proportion of the whole, signficantly less effort is put into the engine then there should be. If you are actually doing 25%, that is better than the 5% I think is being done. And hopefully that 25% isn't strictly fabricating the intake and exhaust manifolds (because you really don't need a variable runner length manifold).

Charlie,

If you have mapped your engine right, just be sure you can prove it. Simple questions should be answerable, like:

How did you set your spark timing (considering you are running E85 with two points higher compression than stock)?
What was your EGT goal and why?
What was your LBT?
Where is your dyno data proving the above?

And lastly, my favourite:
Did you tune for peak power or peak average power and why?

[Chris Davin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VFR750R:
I know that we have awesome engine rules....basically none, but I always wondered how great it would be to have a 1000cc or maybe higher limit instead of 610cc. It gives dozens more choices without really increasing the hp potential...restrictors being the same.
That said the torque would definitly be up, so corner exits should be funner http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif but shouldn't make the car significantly more dangerous. Choking would be sooner and you can look at that any way you like. It would probably be alot of work getting a 1000cc 4 to handle less then half the hp though.

I'm just saying it may allow for some discovery outside the 600cc 4 without the hp disadvantage of the single. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point, but it might not be worth the extra weight penalty of having a heavier engine.

[Chris Davin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Schmitty:
So you want to use a bigger engine? I have one word...http://nurburgring.de/eventdetails.php3?id=7&event=000101_v&lang=eng

If larger engines were allowed what size restrictor would you expect to see? The same 20mm would likely change for these larger engines in order to maintain the safety factor. So you add the weight, restriction, and minimal horsepower...you didn't make any progress. Try using smaller engines, they perform better under restricion anyway.

Personally I would like to see 2 different classes in the FSAE competition; kind of like aero-design's open class/regular class. FSAE's open class can include rotory or 2-cycle engines, mabye larger displacement fours. This would give the more established teams lots more options and room to stretch their legs while giving the newer teams more fair competition (I'm not whining, really. I'd love to have a sponsorship bracket that goes over $1000 http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree. FSAE is not a spectator sport - it's an engineering design competition. Putting big-power engines in these cars would certainly make things faster more dangerous, but I don't see how it would challenge the minds of engineering students any more than the current set of rules.

In my opinion, the current set of rules do quite an excellent job of providing a meaningful engineering challenge to students. The restrictor keeps power to reasonable levels, and the 4-stroke piston rule means that engines are cheap and readily available to all teams. A new team with limited funding has the potential to come close to the performance of the big, high-dollar teams. There are also some quirks in the rules that present interesting challenges (like compressors after the throttle).

If the SAE removed some of the engine restrictions, the money required to have a competitive engine would skyrocket. Teams would be importing real racing engines, there would be big-$$ sponsorships from companies donating research, new materials and technologies. And, these engines would cost the same on the cost report as a regular F2. I don't think it would improve the quality of the competition, just force the well-funded teams to spend tons of money, and push many not-so-well-funded teams out of competition entirely.

FYI, I was looking through the engine rules for the SAE clean snowmobile challenge, and they are something like this:
-four-stroke piston engines up to 960 cc (there was a displacement limit for 2-strokes as well)
-no intake restriction
-turbos and superchargers optional
-E85 available as a fuel choice

I can see a turbocharged CBR-954RR running on E85 making 400 horsepower! Maybe we're in the wrong competition! ;-)

[Chris Davin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DontAsk:
Additionally, leave the restrictor at 20mm, and let us run nitromethane. That could really make the acceleration contests interesting. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif It would really challenge the teams to figure out how to put the power to the ground. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nitromethane would make things interesting. But, it also costs about $30/gallon, AND you go through it nine times as fast as gasoline (for the same size engine). On top of that, add the cost of rebuilding an engine after a few hours of runtime. Yikes!

[Chris Davin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DontAsk:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by drivetrainUW-Platt:
all this talk about goin fast. Yeah fast is always fun in the right situations. but, most of us are engineering students, not race car drivers!! Ihave heard of teams that have thrown a driver in the car for the first time ever before endurance, I found this out after talkin to them about why they were goin so damn slow, apparently the driver had never used the pushbutton shifter controls and was in one gear all the way around the track. We are not designing you typical minivan here, controls are unique to each car, they all handle different ect ect ect...fsae is to teach kids how to design cars, not how to be pro racers, also, i think that the competition would be really looked down on if ppl were dieing all the time!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Putting an untrained driver in the car is inexcuseable at competition. Finally, racing is dangerous. If you are not willing to accept the risk, then don't get in the car. Additionally I think that even at higher speeds, a proper cage, nomex and a helmet offer plenty of protection. I would not have much fear of wrecking a properly built FSAE car. If I didn't like the engineering behind our car and felt it unsafe, I would not drive it. As professional (or soon to be) engineers you should be capable of designing a safe car and the inspectors should be able to recognize a car that is unsafe. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that racing is dangerous. However, FSAE is not racing - it's an engineering competition. Yes, there are risks inherent in piloting any vehicle, including FSAE cars. But, the organizers have a responsibility to keep the event safe.

Part of the appeal of professional racing is the danger. Fourty years ago, drivers died left and right - now, it's more controlled but drivers are still killed every year. But the industry is driven by spectators - they pay money to watch, and drivers are willing to race, knowing that each lap they drive might be their last.

That's not what FSAE should be. FSAE is still dangerous, but making it faster and more dangerous for the purposes of thrilling spectators or inflating egos is not what it should be about.