FSAE 2013 rules draft released [Archive]

Kevin Hayward

05-29-2012, 12:35 AM

Jan,

Agree with you on the panic switch. Its implementation seems odd. It is difficult to define a panic situation. Are we trying to prevent hard use of brakes on the circuit? I have seen many lockups in FSAE that would not be "panic" situations.

Also there is no ability to run it through the ECU. I assume this is to counteract attempts by teams to neutralise the switch after inspection. This can easily be done a number of ways. I have seen plenty of FSAE cars running around with brake pedals to the floor that somehow don't fire the brake over travel switch. Both rely on the trust of the teams, and I see no reason why you cant have it fire off the ECU if you have the rule in the first place.

So what we have is a rule for a badly defined situation that will be difficult to police compliance.

Mainly though I think this new iteration of the rules is a good one. The move to efficiency is great, as well as providing closer rule sets internationally (hope Australia gets back on board). There is some good clearing up of definitions for monocoque constructions, and the official inclusion of electric rules are all big winners.

Kev

Dewi Griffiths

05-29-2012, 01:19 AM

Panic brake switch:
I'm not a fan of this. I agree with what is said above regarding the "definition of a panic situation".

Inertia Kill Switch:
This isn't something I would object to. I could take it or leave it.

Percy changes:
I still do not understand why there is an addition of legs to Percy, however he has no knees. We queried this and got no answer back. Anyone have opinions/information?

Some Guy

05-29-2012, 02:55 AM

I'm with a lot of other people. I am having trouble wrapping my head around the intent behind the brake panic switch. What kind of dangerous situation is it designed to prevent?

Speaking as a member of the team that crashed their car at Michigan this year, the g-loading the car saw during the crash wasn't high enough to trip the sensor specified... So what is the purpose of this device exactly? Is this to prevent the driver from driving away from an accident? I would think that simply pointing that out during the drivers meeting and black flagging the offending car would be sufficient. We certainly didn't keep driving, and after inspecting the car everything was still in perfect working order.

MileyCyrus

05-29-2012, 06:19 AM

I feel, at least the inertia switch is a good idea. Cars aren't always run at comp and in the most ideal locations. Say a crash occurred in a frontal or side impact to a car, knocking the driver unconscious. Having a device to automatically stop the car immediately would definitely be a great idea.

As far as the panic switch, I feel it could be possibly be a good idea, though not exactly convinced on the current implementation. I could see many instances arising with amateur drivers coming into corners hot and pushing the brake peddle a little to hard, leading to the car switching itself off mid-corner needing to be restart. All that said though, I still feel it's a good idea. I'm all for the implementation of safety to our cars. It's us that they are trying to protect.

Just my $0.02.

Cheers,

AxelRipper

05-29-2012, 06:32 AM

Originally posted by Some Guy:
Speaking as a member of the team that crashed their car at Michigan this year, the g-loading the car saw during the crash wasn't high enough to trip the sensor specified... So what is the purpose of this device exactly? Is this to prevent the driver from driving away from an accident? I would think that simply pointing that out during the drivers meeting and black flagging the offending car would be sufficient. We certainly didn't keep driving, and after inspecting the car everything was still in perfect working order.

Since it is able to be reset by the driver, this doesn't seem to be the case. I'm guessing it is so that everything shuts off in the event of a crash and the car won't be running to harm the volunteers coming to help.

Not sold on the panic switch either. I understand what they're trying to get to (TBW) but as others have said, on these cars with the drivers in them, lockup happens in normal driving. Also, in brake test, would you no longer have to keep the engine running after lockup like currently? Would they require you to do a brake lockup and restart? What happens if you lockup on the endurance track and there is a car behind you?

TMichaels

05-29-2012, 06:46 AM

Regarding the inertia switch:
The intention is indeed to switch the car off (mainly the fuel pump) safely in case of a crash or crash-like situation, especially, if the driver might not be able to react for whatever reason.

The fact that it is allowed to be driver-resettable should make sure that it does not destroy your Endurance, in case you are running over a bump in the track too hard or something similar that triggers the inertia switch happens.

mech5496

05-30-2012, 02:41 AM

The brake panic switch is something I don't get either. As long as inertia switch is regarded, I'm pretty worried of what will happen over that bump on FSG...I have witnessed a bunch of cars getting airborne for a while at that specific point which IMHO is really likely to trip the inertia (at least our Sensata switch); that's why we chose to mount it on the front hoop so the driver being able to reset it without loosing so much time, BUT if my memory serves me correctly this bump is followed by a right-hand turn (last year did). Imagine a situation of the driver trying to manipulate brakes in order not to lock up, trying to turn right and resetting the inertia switch at the same time.... On the efficiency scoring, seems that it is a little biased towards electric powertrains; and that's great news! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

rmk36

05-30-2012, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by AxelRipper:
What happens if you lockup on the endurance track and there is a car behind you?

This is my big concern. I think it will cause a lot of traffic issues. If an inertia switch is included, I'm not sure we even need a panic brake switch. If the panic maneuver is successful, the driver should carry on. If the panic ends in a collision, let the inertial switch take care of business.

If the rule really must be included...

The current text is quite vague. Different track surfaces have different lock up points resulting in different line pressures.

I think a reasonable alternative would be to calculate the line pressure at some rules defined driver input force that everyone can agree is a panic force (and not just aggressive braking). Each team would then have to show the scrutineers how they calculated their line pressures. I'm still thinking about how to check the switch in scrutineering. I don't really like the idea of scrutineers getting in the car and stomping on the brake pedal.

Administrative note...

Unless I'm blind, some of the numbering in the introduction differs from the actual rules text.

Question for Tobias...

Will the feedback posted on the forum be passed onto the rules committee, or should we only submit feedback via the email specified on page 1?

Canuck Racing

05-30-2012, 08:18 AM

Rather than simply point out how ridiculous this rule is, here's an alternative solution to the out of control vehicle: Sticky Throttle? (http://www.slickssalvage.com/eBay/121610%20011.jpg)

We could require every team to run one in the cockpit within easy reach of the driver.

TMichaels

05-30-2012, 08:22 AM

Question for Tobias...

Will the feedback posted on the forum be passed onto the rules committee, or should we only submit feedback via the email specified on page 1?

I will take care of that, but please also send your comments via mail, just to make sure that I do not miss an important point.

Cardriverx

05-30-2012, 10:29 PM

the biggest gripe I have with the panic switch is the part that says:

"The switch must be implemented with analogue components and not through recourse to
programmable logic controllers, engine control units, or similar functioning digital controllers."

This makes it really hard to implement. Following the rules, I would need to buy an expensive pressure switch (from someone like ashcroft) and figure out a way to implement that.

The easy way would be using something like a MoTeC PDM, I already have brake pressure. So I just make some logic that says when pressure is above X, cut ign and fuel. This way I can change X to find a good value that won't accidently trip, and I could code some logic to easily reset it.

My justification is that is the PDM failed, the car is turning off anyway. So what is the issue with running the panic switch through it?

If that was allowed, then I am fine with the rule. As it is now, I think it will be way too hard/expensive/unreliable to implement.

And yes, I want to see drive by wire.

Ill be emailing my opinion too.

Fantomas

05-31-2012, 02:36 AM

Hi,
I feel that the brake panic switch rule rather decreases safety than increases it.
<UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI> It is hard to implement, especially without EE's on your team. <LI> It could be impossible to implement it feasible for cars with aero or ABS. <LI> Cars will break down in Endurance for no particular reason [/list]
Fantomas

Krister

05-31-2012, 07:17 AM

@TMichaels
Do you know and can share the official reason for the Brake Panic Switch? It would be good to know why the Rules Committee think we need it.

Krister

Jon @ Electromotive, Inc.

05-31-2012, 07:53 AM

The wording regarding drive-by-wire follows wording that implies they want to see if the panic switch works first. If the panic switch is good, then they will consider allowing DBW.

Sounds like this is how they're attacking the 'Toyota stuck throttle' problem. I agree that the implementation is a little weird. Toyota's implementation would probably not work in motorsport because they simple close the throttle if the brakes are applied. The obviously does not work in a situation where there is no DBW. I would think that driven wheel speed would be needed to set up something that says the brake pressure is X, the wheels should be locked now but they're not. Something has gone wrong, make it stop. There is, by the way a means to do that with a stand-alone fully analog circuit, but it would likely be finicky and much hard to implement than in a system like a PDM.

Maybe I read something that wasn't there.

Cardriverx

05-31-2012, 09:35 AM

I don't see why the brake panic switch needs to be on the car to have DBW, TMichaels if you could explain this that would be much appreciated.

A properly designed DBW system has just as much chance of getting stuck open as a cable throttle, and if is a worry of the driver hitting the gas and brake (toyotas problem) then that can happen with a cable throttle too.

If anything happens with the position sensors on the throttle body or pedal, the DBW system turns off/goes into limp. I don't see why this can't just be mandated.

TMichaels

05-31-2012, 12:24 PM

Hi guys,
before commenting, I have to give a short explanation:
I am part of the FSAE rules sub-committee for the EV section and not officially part of the main FSAE rules committee. I posted the link mainly to get feedback regarding the EV section. I am also not an official spokesman for the FSAE rules committee.

Now to your questions:
The intention of this rule is to prevent situations in which the torque delivered by the engine or motor does not match the driver's torque demand and in which the driver desperately tries to slow the vehicle down by pressing the brake with all available force, thus triggering the switch.

Such situation could occur due to a mechanically stuck throttle or if any kind of throttle-by-wire system is used, which fails due to software errors, damaged sensors etc.

MegaDeath

05-31-2012, 01:53 PM

Dash

05-31-2012, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by TMichaels:

Now to your questions:
The intention of this rule is to prevent situations in which the torque delivered by the engine or motor does not match the driver's torque demand and in which the driver desperately tries to slow the vehicle down by pressing the brake with all available force, thus triggering the switch.

Such situation could occur due to a mechanically stuck throttle or if any kind of throttle-by-wire system is used, which fails due to software errors, damaged sensors etc.

Isn't that what the Emergency Kill switch is for? Or are we going to redundant systems here? I and one other driver on our team have been in a situation with a stuck throttle. We simply held the brakes and pushed the red button on the dash panel. Both of us stopped with no problems, fixed the issue, and kept going. I caught a rock in the butterfly valve before we put on the air filter and then the other guy had a spring that broke on the throttle body.

RStory

05-31-2012, 04:43 PM

It seems to me the panic switch should shut off the engine if full braking AND throttle have been applied together, longer than some short period of time that would prevent it from being activated on the transition from accelerating to braking or on downshifts.

I would imagine that would be difficult for some teams to implement though, depending on the engine management system, and it wouldn't be very practical as an analogue system.

Some Guy

05-31-2012, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by TMichaels:

Now to your questions:
The intention of this rule is to prevent situations in which the torque delivered by the engine or motor does not match the driver's torque demand and in which the driver desperately tries to slow the vehicle down by pressing the brake with all available force, thus triggering the switch.

Such situation could occur due to a mechanically stuck throttle or if any kind of throttle-by-wire system is used, which fails due to software errors, damaged sensors etc.

This seems like the whole Toyota unintended acceleration thing. Aside from the fact that most street vehicles (and I know my teams car) have more brake torque available then engine torque (so really slamming on the brakes will stop you) one can simply shut the car off and make the situation safe. I thought that was the whole purpose of a big red kill switch on the dash.

I could see so many ways that a full analogue circuit for a cut off would just end up being hokey... If this really must be done (which I dont think it needs to be) then it makes far more sense to do it electronically. I would say also make it only a requirement on DBW vehicles when those come into play as this seems to be tailored to those vehicles.

I'll be emailing the rules committee too.

Cardriverx

05-31-2012, 09:19 PM

Could you elaborate on how it needs to be wired? What do you mean by analog components? Could you give an example of a proper type switch? What do you think of my using the pdm idea I posted above?

Thanks

Originally posted by TMichaels:
Hi guys,
before commenting, I have to give a short explanation:
I am part of the FSAE rules sub-committee for the EV section and not officially part of the main FSAE rules committee. I posted the link mainly to get feedback regarding the EV section. I am also not an official spokesman for the FSAE rules committee.

Now to your questions:
The intention of this rule is to prevent situations in which the torque delivered by the engine or motor does not match the driver's torque demand and in which the driver desperately tries to slow the vehicle down by pressing the brake with all available force, thus triggering the switch.

Such situation could occur due to a mechanically stuck throttle or if any kind of throttle-by-wire system is used, which fails due to software errors, damaged sensors etc.

spierson

05-31-2012, 09:19 PM

This will make brake test interesting, considering we usually keep two feet down to keep the motor from stalling. I would suspect many teams would not be able to pass brake test due to stalling, unless the requirement for a running motor is removed from the brake test. I agree that this system should be implemented for DBW systems only. Not sure how I feel about the inertia switch yet, I think it may be a little unnecessary for our application, especially if it may cause issues during races with random shutoffs.

TMichaels

06-01-2012, 01:22 AM

Not sure how I feel about the inertia switch yet, I think it may be a little unnecessary for our application, especially if it may cause issues during races with random shutoffs.

We will test the inertia switch next week on the FSG track in Hockenheim to make sure that it is not an issue. If it is, the requirements will be adjusted accordingly in this year's FSG rules set.

06-02-2012, 05:26 AM

Originally posted by TMichaels:
The FSAE 2013 rules draft...

What do you think?
Tobias,

I realise that you are mainly interested in the EV parts, but...

The last version was too long, and this one is longer still! Ever more "creeping complexity", like panic/inertia switches, etc., while the many flawed sections remain untouched.

Still no attempt at any sort of DEFINITION of "open-wheeled" or "formula style" vehicle, or crucial concepts like "bodywork" or "aerodynamic devices". So repeats of the farcical banning of UWAs wheelpods at FSAE-A 2011 are likely. Or similar nonsense to F1's banning of inertial dampers (spring-mass systems SEALED inside a box) because they are "movable aerodynamic devices".

Another one (I just had a quick browse) is a brake light that must be "clearly visible from rear in bright sunlight". Visible by whom, and from how far? By a half-blind man from a mile away? An eagle from an inch?

Honestly, the document is a disgrace. It needs a complete rewrite, mainly by stripping it to the bone, and then a lot more thoughtful choice of words.
~~~o0o~~~

Regarding the "panic/inertia" switches, I agree with the majority of posts above.

In fact, I would argue they will make the cars less safe, because less design/development time will be available for the real safety devices, which are primarily the steering and brakes (which, IMO, are mostly marginal). No amount of electronic gimmickry will help a car that suffers a sheared steering pinion or brake pedal pivot.

I note that horses come with rather poor steering and braking controls (the reins) and no "engine kill switch" at all. Yet no country on the planet prohibits small children from riding horses. At some stage you have to take responsibility for your own safety. Sitting on a skittish horse is a good place to start. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Z

PeterK

06-02-2012, 09:13 AM

I note that horses come with rather poor steering and braking controls (the reins) and no "engine kill switch" at all. Yet no country on the planet prohibits small children from riding horses. At some stage you have to take responsibility for your own safety. Sitting on a skittish horse is a good place to start. Smile

Z

Awesome Z,

To help support your point I found this interesting reference from a US Gov't website:

"The rate of serious injury per number of riding hours is estimated to be higher for horseback riders than for motorcyclists and automobile racers "

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001626.htm

Of course what this really means is that horseback riding needs to have better safety practices... But I agree with your point. Too often we start mitigating without putting things into context.

I would like to know how the rules committee decided to start looking at these additional safety requirements. I certainly hope that a formal study of historic failures in Formula SAE with a mind towards prevention instead of a knee jerk reaction (which is often common).

TMichaels

06-02-2012, 09:30 AM

The last version was too long, and this one is longer still! Ever more "creeping complexity", like panic/inertia switches, etc., while the many flawed sections remain untouched.

Z,
are you referring to the EV section or to other parts of the FSAE rules?

rmk36

06-02-2012, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by Z:

Still no attempt at any sort of DEFINITION of "open-wheeled" or "formula style" vehicle, or crucial concepts like "bodywork" or "aerodynamic devices". So repeats of the farcical banning of UWAs wheelpods at FSAE-A 2011 are likely.

I think you've already made your point on this. No sense beating a dead horse on the forums and turning this thread into another bickering match. Take it up with the rules committee directly. They have an email address.

mdavis

06-02-2012, 06:47 PM

While I agree with you, rmk36, that Z is beating a dead horse, I think there needs to be some form of international clarification about what is considered "open wheel" and "formula car", mainly because I can think of 1 car from Michigan this year that was clearly covering part of their front wheels in plan view with their front wing, and not only did they pass tech, but the car was very fast, finishing top 3 in Autocross... I'm surprised that nobody from UWA has made a fuss about it, and props to them for holding their tongues.

rmk36

06-02-2012, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by mdavis:
I think there needs to be some form of international clarification about what is considered "open wheel" and "formula car".

I don't disagree with you at all on this point.

06-03-2012, 05:25 AM

Peter,

I could go on at great length about "safety" and the nanny state, but (fortunately for you guys) it is late Sunday night. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
~~~o0o~~~

Tobias,

My comments were about the Rules in general. I have not had time to read the EV parts in detail.

I have a copy of the Rules from ~ten years ago, and it is about half the length of the proposed 2013 version. IMO, very few of the added rules are an improvement, and very few of the (old) flawed sections have been fixed. This is no surprise. It is simply how bureaucracies, design-by-committee, etc., works. I just feel obliged to point these things out, in the very slim hope that some improvements might eventually be made.

So for the record, here are some suggestions on how "Rules" should be written.

1. Rules should be as objective as possible, for example, by specifying allowable dimensions. So hard dimensions for minimum wheelbase, wheel diameter, etc., are good. A subjective specification such as "brake light visible (?) in bright sunlight" is bad.

2. The very subjective interpretations possible for crucial terms like "open-wheel", "bodywork", or "aero devices" should be constrained with definitions. I note that "definitions" can also be subjectively interpreted, but at least some attempt should be made to tighten things up. Better yet (as an eg.) is to NOT have any rules governing "aero devices", and instead just have hard numerical dimensional constraints on "bodywork" (which might be defined as "all parts other than chassis, drivetrain, wheels, ...")

3. Above all, the author(s) should treat it like a game of chess. That is, they should constantly be checking for flaws, weaknesses, loopholes, ambiguities, etc., in their work. If such problems occur, then certainly the next set of Rules should be ammended to prevent a reoccurance. That does not seem to have happened with "wheelpods".
~~~o0o~~~

Ryan,

The "dead horse" is still alive and kicking, and running rampant in the top paddock (see point 3 above)! I don't want a bickering match. In fact, I'm trying to save the next team that wants to do wheelpods from having to undergo one.

I would happily "take it up with the rules committee directly", except that I reckon that would be a waste of time. They are either already aware of this issue, or else not interested. Either way, a "private" suggestion gets filed in the "round drawer".

Z

TMichaels

06-03-2012, 05:37 AM

A subjective specification such as "brake light visible (?) in bright sunlight" is bad.

Z,
although I agree that it is good to have hard values, which can be measured, the rules committee also has to take into account the effects. In this specific case for the brake light, a minimum Lumen value could probably be specified, but what does that mean? All teams need to buy a photometer. All the events need to buy photometers. Money that will be missing for other parts of the car or competition. You need to specify a test, which can be easily re-produced by the teams and on the events, which is really not trivial for photometric measurements.

Instead you could leave the rule as it is and just, as a team, buy an LED brake light made for a motorcycle for 10$ and are done. In the other case you need to make sure, that the bought part matches the given Lumen value, no matter if it is still possible to recognize it easily in bright sunlight.

I prefer the second approach, although it is not perfect in theory, it is a feasible compromise in my opinion.

Additionally specifying hard values such as the size of aerodynamic parts, minimum wheel diameter, etc. But, if take a look at the cars, what does happen? Most of these values are chosen to maintain safety (which usually means that they limit the performance of the cars). This leads to the teams building as close to the limits as possible. So what you effectively get is spec cars.

Regarding the structure / re-writing: The rules have grown historically and all such documents have in common that they tend to get a bit messy and/or have redundant content. Maybe a rewrite would be a good idea, but all people of the rules committee are volunteers as well, never forget that, their time is limited as well. The rewritten rules will have loop holes, more than the previous set and that means that even a rewritten rules book will again start to suffer from let's call it "fragmentation" over time. This will happen in a loop with every major re-write.

However, I have to say, that I often notice that you are critizing the rules with a very shallow proposal how to make it better. This is easy. I could to this as well, but my personal opinion is that criticism is not constructive unless you are able to provide a feasible and superior solution considering all affected parties, the teams and the event organizers. Destructive criticism should be left for the ignorant.

spierson

06-03-2012, 07:24 AM

I think the rules committee needs to remember that we are a bunch of tiny cars on a coned course with no major obstacles lying on the course. There is almost NOTHING to hit. Even if a car is a runaway, the emergency cut off button is literally right next to the steering wheel. Slap it and the car turns off. Stuck throttle on an IC car? Pull the clutch, it disconnects power. Hit the brakes, it will stall the motor. No brakes? Well the over travel will take care of that for you. I think the rules committee may be a little out of touch with the types of issues and cars they are dealing with.

I'm going to be a bit critical, but the clear solution to the safety aspect of these cars is to do nothing. There is too much redundancy in all the wrong places. Just because you can use these safety items, doesn't mean you should.

With the current rules, there is only ONE thing that actually poses a legitimate threat to a driver. Fire. It's the only thing that really destroys a lot of FSAE cars, and it is both shrugged off in driver meetings (which I find disgusting, every year a question is asked about fire, the coordinators are usually more worried about getting the car to the side of the track to continue the event rather than telling us the plan to get the driver to safety) and also in the rules with lack of any fire suppression protocols or systems besides a suit. I realize fire suppression systems can be expensive, and I'm okay driving with just a fire suit, but I'm not okay with not knowing what's going to happen to me if I can't get out (example: inhale toxic fumes, jammed seatbelt, etc..). The first person to the scene will probably be a guy in a t-shirt telling me to get out. Just like the organizers need to trust us with our build practices, we need to trust the organizers with helping us in case there is a real emergency. Whenever my team tests, we ALWAYS have two people ready to run, and I am able to trust my team that if the driver can't get out, they will get the driver out in a short amount of time after ignition. I don't have the same feeling at FSAE events.

I'll leave you with this. Look at the people saving the driver. Not a single person is prepared if he was stuck in the car. This should prove my "guy in t-shirt" point. Also, all endurance videos on youtube show volunteers at the flag stations with no fire gear.

http://fsae.com/eve/forums/a/t...25607348/m/862108033 (http://fsae.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/825607348/m/862108033)
http://www.formulastudent.de/u...cC_image1_02.jpg.jpg (http://www.formulastudent.de/uploads/RTEmagicC_image1_02.jpg.jpg)
http://i165.photobucket.com/al...wderballz/fsfire.jpg (http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u79/powderballz/fsfire.jpg)

These pictures should be disturbing to you in the fact that nobody is prepared. I'd also like to remind that most fires are NOT impact based, there is typically a leak in the system that ignites other things on the car.

To the rules committee, you need to trust us at some point, brake panic switches and inertia switches are addressing "invisible" issues that will probably only cause problems during racing.

Tilman

06-03-2012, 07:46 AM

Heyho,

to address on problem rescuing drivers:

What about seatbelt cutters? They are small, light, cheap and there should be one on every pushbar and every marshall should have one. It is nice to require a driver to exit a vehicle within five seconds, but if the belt release fails I do not want to wait until the belt has been destroyed by the fire so that the driver can get out of the car ...

Kevin Hayward

06-03-2012, 08:23 AM

Cannot agree more on the mistaken safety focus.

We have rules focusing on crash safety with redundant systems, but very loose rules on fire safety. My biggest pet peeve is that we have exhaust systems with no required separation from fuel storage. Exhaust leaks are not uncommon. As both a student and a faculty advisor I have always advocated that there was always a firewall between the fuel storage and the exhaust.

When I was driving FSAE (4 years) I experienced some "sticky" throttles during early testing, but only one that truly stuck. While a bit unnerving it was very easy to hit the shut-off switch. I should note that the error would have been picked up in scrutineering, and would not have run in comp without changes.

On the other hand I have been involved with two fires for one of the teams I was with, and have witnessed many at comps. A good start would be to implement better preventative measures. We are entertaining the idea of inertia switches, but what about mandated standard fuel cells, separation of fuel and exhaust, and better control over the mix of electricity and fuel.

...

I feel for the difficult situation the rules committee is in. Nice tight rule sets require a large amount of work, and this could only be made more diffcult by the number of stakeholders. The best idea I have heard for changing the rules was from Scott Wordley while discussing this issue in Australia. Paraphrasing Scott:

"What if every time the committee wanted to add a rule, they took away two."

You could make a good case for refine before create. If the rules for inertia switches and panic brake switches are required for drive by wire, then lets not have drive by wire. I like the sort of work that has been done in refining some of the issues of monocoque structural equivalency. This is still an area where the decades of structural equivalency reports should have had more impact on the rules. Clarification helps teams and does not involve increasing the cost of competition. By this time I would have expected some standard layups that teams could adopt.

The rules have become overly complicated. There are two sets of frame rules, an uneccessary template system, and many special-case limitations. I still think that this rule set is a decent set of changes apart from a few stand out issues. The main damage to the rules was done a while ago and hasn't been undone.

Kev

mech5496

06-03-2012, 09:15 AM

About non-clear rules; last year we had issues passing scrutineering in FSG due to some broken LED's on our brake light. It was up to the scrutineer to decide, and he decided that we could not pass. Notice that was on a FIA-approved taillight with about 8 LED's gone. (I have to admit that I agree with his decision) However, this year and building an electric car, the team decided to use as a TSAL a halogen safety lamp (given the last years' incident) so no one could argue that it IS bright. It must be the ugliest, bulkiest thing on the car...We could possible get away with some LED stripes, but the rule set is not clear about the light intensity and the angle on which it will be measured (LEDs are highly directional sources so light intensity won't be the same around the cone specified by the rules). Of course we asked for a clarification, but got no response yet. Small problem (we could always use LEDs and have that halogen beast around in case we fail tech) but still a headache!

Although I do not agree with everything posted around here, that's great input from all of you guys! The thing is that apart from Tobias and mr.Royce, no one else from the rules committee that I'm aware of will read that very topic. What about collecting all of our thoughts and getting back with an e-mail in the form of creative feedback?

06-03-2012, 10:58 PM

Tobias,

Please note that the following is intended as helpful and constructive. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
~~~o0o~~~

"In this specific case for the brake light, a minimum Lumen value could probably be specified, but...
... You need to specify a test, ..., which is really not trivial for photometric measurements."

As a very rough first draft I would suggest something like:

"A rear brake light must be positioned within the region shown in Figure N.n, and when "On" must have a minimum luminosity of ... (etc.). If scrutineers are not satisfied with their subjective assessment of the light, then the team may be required to prove the luminosity level using an instrument approved to ..., and supplied by the team.
(Advisory Note: A 15W incandescent, or ?W Led, generic brake light as in pictures X.x, ... is usually found to be acceptable...)."

Bottom line is that as an official I would NOT be hassling teams over their brake lights. At worst I would GIVE them a suitable one, and demand a couple of beers in return, that evening. But the Rule as it stands leaves open the possibility of problems resulting from human weaknesses (eg. ego, personal prejudices, etc.). Having a hard Lumens value lessens the possibility of such problems.

Also, I believe a good idea is to have a very short and "objectively hard" set of Official Rules, assisted by a much longer, softer, and more subjective "Helpful Notes for Interpreting the Rules". These "Helpful Notes..." could be an entirely separate document (my preference), or else spread through the Rules, as with the "Advisory Note" above, but in a different ("softer") font.
~~~o0o~~~

"Additionally specifying hard values such as the size of aerodynamic parts, ...
... what you effectively get is spec cars."

The current aero rules specify a maximum "bounding box" for aero devices, which I think is good (though max height should be added). This has not lead to spec cars, and I doubt that it ever will. But the rules also specify a minimum R1.5mm edge radii for aero devices, without any clarification of what an "aero device" is, which is bad.

So is a brake duct, or exhaust pipe, or other "body" part, an "aero device"? If so, and if made as usual with edge radii less than 1.5mm, then cars so fitted could/should be banned. This is inconsistent with past practice. However, the Rules as they stand allow such entirely "subjective" bannings. The UWA wheelpod farce is the most recent example of this, and a repeat of that nonsense is likely.

I note that in F1, brake ducts are currently not considered aero devices, and are hence free, and hence covered with mini-wings! On the other hand, exhausts are considered aero devices, so are subject to constantly varying restrictions. As another example of this subjective stupidity in F1, a proposed hydraulic-mechanical brake anti-dive system was recently deemed to be a "movable aerodynamic device" (like an inertial damper!), and so was banned.

This is, of course, just part of the soap-opera nature of F1, where crazy plot-twists are thrown in willy-nilly, just to keep the punters interested. But that is no reason to copy it in an "educational" exercise like FSAE.
~~~o0o~~~

"Regarding the structure / re-writing: ...
... The rewritten rules will have loop holes... "

Briefly, a complicated set of rules is like a complicated car. The more parts there are, the more parts that can fail. The simpler the system, the fewer the potential problems.
~~~o0o~~~

"However, I have to say, that I often notice that you are critizing the rules with a very shallow proposal how to make it better...
... but my personal opinion is that criticism is not constructive unless you are able to provide a feasible and superior solution...
... Destructive criticism should be left for the ignorant."

A bit off-topic, but an important subject. And, sorry, but I disagree strongly (but in a constructive way! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif).

Personally, I like receiving criticism. I have found that it is the only way that I can improve myself (this includes a lot of self-criticism). Receiving praise might make me feel good (to a small degree, for a small time), but I have never learnt anything useful from it.

I reckon that the first and most crucial step in fixing a problem is to identify it. The process of finding a "superior solution" necessarily comes second, is optional, and is sometimes not even possible.

So, for example, consider a Young Engineer working for an airliner manufacturer, who is given the task of reviewing some minor design detail of the new "Dreamliner". During this process the sharp-eyed YE notices a flaw in the calculation of fatigue strength of the wings. It seems that the wings will fall off after only 1,000 hours, rather than the previously estimated 1,000,000 hours!

So,
1. Does YE immediately and loudly shout the unconstructive criticism that "the wings are crap!!!!!"?
2. Does YE say nothing while the first Dreamliners are being built and flown, and quietly try to figure out how to strengthen the wings?
3. Is it, in fact, possible to strengthen the wings without a massive and expensive redesign?

I bet all potential passengers would be hoping for 1 above, and would thank YE profusely.

Unfortunately, I reckon many company CEOs would con$ider 3 above, then demand 2 above. And they would crucify YE if he gave 1 above, and denounce him as a "disgruntled former employee, err..., who has a drinking problem...". Well, that is what history shows is often the case...

Anyway, IMO criticism is good.

It doesn't give you the right answers, and this negativity might disappoint those used to always getting a "gold star". But criticism does discourage you from using the wrong answers, and that might save your life.

Z

Nicky

06-04-2012, 12:22 AM

Going through the entire thread. I agree with importance on track safety and improved fire safety standards.

I'd be echoing a lot of opinions here regarding the inertia switch and the panic button. Can we make things simpler and link to the actuation state of the DBW throttle body to the Kill-Switch? If the DBW bodies get their power through a controller or an ECU, power to those should be cut through the kill switch. Or even add a 3-channel relay to cut signals between the controller and the DBW throttle. This relay would be turned on/off by the position of the Kill Switch.

There are kill switch variants available wherein you can install various switch slots that are actuated together(upto 3). These enable in using the old wiring harness with whatever logic(active hi/lo) that is being applied along with an addition to the DBW application.

I believe that is still mandatory to have a return spring in DBW throttle bodies. Hence as soon as power is cut to it, the throttle snaps shut. Hope this helps.

Cardriverx

06-04-2012, 06:24 PM

Most all DBW throttle bodies you can buy return to a parked state when not powered that is slightly cracked open.

I want DBW and I see no reason why we are not allowed it thus far. It is common technology now, and something we would work with as engineers if we work for an auto manufacturer (powertrain/electronics) after graduation.

I would be fine with having to do a failure analysis for DBW, proving our DBW design, etc. But I don't see why having DBW requires adding the panic switch. A cable has just as good (if not more) chance if getting stuck open. And if you specify that the DBW system needs to be redundant (at least 2 position sensors on the pedal and TB) as well as a documented plan for what the ECU does if there is error in the readings then I see no reason to ban DBW.

Example, a rule would specify that if any of the redundant sensors on the TB or pedal have greater than 10% error, then the DBW system must go into limp mode. Something along that lines. You could also require us to submit a document that details our system and the safety features which would be reviewed and approved.

The electric cars have to use DBW and you let them, so why not the combustion cars too?

Originally posted by Nicky:
Going through the entire thread. I agree with importance on track safety and improved fire safety standards.

I'd be echoing a lot of opinions here regarding the inertia switch and the panic button. Can we make things simpler and link to the actuation state of the DBW throttle body to the Kill-Switch? If the DBW bodies get their power through a controller or an ECU, power to those should be cut through the kill switch. Or even add a 3-channel relay to cut signals between the controller and the DBW throttle. This relay would be turned on/off by the position of the Kill Switch.

There are kill switch variants available wherein you can install various switch slots that are actuated together(upto 3). These enable in using the old wiring harness with whatever logic(active hi/lo) that is being applied along with an addition to the DBW application.

I believe that is still mandatory to have a return spring in DBW throttle bodies. Hence as soon as power is cut to it, the throttle snaps shut. Hope this helps.

TMichaels

06-05-2012, 12:53 AM

I totally agree, that there should be something like rules of conduct or similar for the organizers of a competition, but this is not really a rules thing, I think.

I also agree that there are other feasible solutions despite the brake-panic-switch.

What you have to take into account, when thinking about Throttle-By-Wire for the combustion cars is the resulting extra work for volunteers reviewing the specific documents. One could argue that this was accepted for the electric cars as well, but these cannot really be built without while the combustion cars can.

TMichaels

06-05-2012, 01:00 AM

A rear brake light must be positioned within the region shown in Figure N.n, and when "On" must have a minimum luminosity of ... (etc.). If scrutineers are not satisfied with their subjective assessment of the light, then the team may be required to prove the luminosity level using an instrument approved to ..., and supplied by the team.
(Advisory Note: A 15W incandescent, or ?W Led, generic brake light as in pictures X.x, ... is usually found to be acceptable...)."

Bottom line is that as an official I would NOT be hassling teams over their brake lights. At worst I would GIVE them a suitable one, and demand a couple of beers in return, that evening. But the Rule as it stands leaves open the possibility of problems resulting from human weaknesses (eg. ego, personal prejudices, etc.). Having a hard Lumens value lessens the possibility of such problems.

Z,
an instrument provided by a team can never be used to check the team's compliance to a rule.

I often read that you are talking about scrutineers/officials having ego problems or prejudices against teams. I asked you this before I think, but what leads to such a bad opinion about these people (which includes me)?

I have not yet(being a team member for three years and an official for three years) seen a scrutineer letting a team fail, because he was in a bad mood, had prejudices or ego problems.

06-05-2012, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by TMichaels:
I often read that you are talking about scrutineers/officials having ego problems or prejudices against teams. I asked you this before I think, but what leads to such a bad opinion about these people (which includes me)?
Tobias,

I have either been a competitor in, or worked on the "other side of the fence" in, all sorts of competitions for the better part of half a century. I have found, quite obviously if you think about it, that "officials" cover the full range of human strengths and weaknesses. This means, inevitably, that half of them are "below average" (it is a statistical fact! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif).

The point of having "Rules" is to cover for the weaknesses of both the competitors and officials, and to thus maintain consistent standards. Unfortunately, every now and then, someone finds a new way to "break the Rules". IMO a good Rules Committee should then ammend the Rules to lessen the chance of this happening again. Note that I use the phrase "lessen the chance". No set of Rules can be perfect, because nobody is perfect.
~~~o0o~~~

"I have not yet(being a team member for three years and an official for three years) seen a scrutineer letting a team fail, because he was in a bad mood, had prejudices or ego problems."

(Before anyone starts whingeing that I keep harping on about this subject, I am simply answering Tobias's question.)

I am aware of other similar incidents, but a standout is the recent 2011 Oz comp. In the case of UWA's wheelpods it was indeed NOT the scrutineers who caused the problem. They let the car pass. But, apparently, some time later some other officials threatened UWA with exclusion if they didn't remove or drastically modify the wheelpods.

Some as yet unresolved points here are:
1. There has never been any "transparent and full disclosure" of just which officials were involved, and what their motives were.
2. No thorough explanation of said officials' subjective interpretation of what an "open-wheeled, formula style" car is.
3. No clear clarification of where the mysterious "plane of view" lies.
4. No indication of how "obstruction of wheels in plan view" would be treated in future comps (eg. a car in a later US comp apparently ran with wings directly above wheels).
5. No change to the Rules to lessen the chance of this happening again.

Now, I am quite sure that this lack of accountability from the officials has a lot to do with Michael Royce's assertion that they have "the power of God" over the students. I suspect that many of the students remain quiet on these issues for just that reason. But I see an injustice here, and it was most likely caused by (a very few) official's "bad moods, prejudices, or ego problems".

Anyway, Tobias, I don't know where you lie on the spectrum of humanity, but your openess on this forum suggests to me that you might be "above average". But if you really believe that all politicians are always honest, and always keep their promises, then I think you are being naive. Likewise, if you believe that all FSAE officials are always without fault, then, again, naive.

So I would like to ask you;
1. Were the officials who threatened the banning of UWA right, or wrong?
2. Given the vagueness of the Rules in this area, is a similar incident possible in the future?

Z

(PS. Fire definitely more dangerous to FSAEers than crashing. Death by electric shock possibly more dangerous than fire. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif)

Nick Renold

06-06-2012, 12:20 AM

Regarding the fire safety issue - as a compromise between in-car fire suppression systems, teams could be required to have fire sensors near the engine and fuel system. A "FIRE!" indicator in the cockpit would allow the driver to at least realize what is going on, even if the corner workers are having trouble getting the car to stop by waving yellow flags at them like what happened at the morning session of endurance at MIS 2012. If the fire sensors are triggered, this could shut down the fuel system so that at least more fuel is not getting sprayed into the fire.

Maybe someone with more knowledge of current racing industry fire detection and suppression systems can speak to the issue.

TMichaels

06-06-2012, 12:57 AM

Tobias,

I have either been a competitor in, or worked on the "other side of the fence" in, all sorts of competitions for the better part of half a century. I have found, quite obviously if you think about it, that "officials" cover the full range of human strengths and weaknesses. This means, inevitably, that half of them are "below average" (it is a statistical fact! ).

The point of having "Rules" is to cover for the weaknesses of both the competitors and officials, and to thus maintain consistent standards. Unfortunately, every now and then, someone finds a new way to "break the Rules". IMO a good Rules Committee should then ammend the Rules to lessen the chance of this happening again. Note that I use the phrase "lessen the chance". No set of Rules can be perfect, because nobody is perfect.

I was rather referring to the fact that you seem to imply that there are scrutineers/officials out there who do this with intention.

Likewise, if you believe that all FSAE officials are always without fault, then, again, naive.

I do not think that every official(read human) is without fault. I am just saying that I can not remember any official "failing" with intention to correctly interprete a rule.

Now, I am quite sure that this lack of accountability from the officials has a lot to do with Michael Royce's assertion that they have "the power of God" over the students. I suspect that many of the students remain quiet on these issues for just that reason. But I see an injustice here, and it was most likely caused by (a very few) official's "bad moods, prejudices, or ego problems".

Their decision was probably based on their interpretation of the rules and not, because they do not like UWA or had a bad day.
Not to mention that UWA could have had asked before the competition. Anyway, this is a different discussion.

So I would like to ask you;
1. Were the officials who threatened the banning of UWA right, or wrong?

In my personal opinion, yes, they were. There is currently no hard definition of open-wheeled, formula-style car in the rules. However, when I first saw pictures of the car, it was for me crystal clear that these wheel fairings violate the intent of this rule. We could now discuss forever what the intent of this rule is, but I will not participate in this discussion.

2. Given the vagueness of the Rules in this area, is a similar incident possible in the future?
Yes, unless the teams do not ask for clarification before hand by showing their planned configuration. Every team probably knows that this area is grey and therefore may ask or risk to have to make changes during the competition. I agree that this should be defined in the rules. This is, why we are having this discussion.

Dunk Mckay

06-06-2012, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by Z:
I have found, quite obviously if you think about it, that "officials" cover the full range of human strengths and weaknesses. This means, inevitably, that half of them are "below average" (it is a statistical fact! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif).

I don't like it when people say thing like this, and I'll explain why.
If you define a scale of human strength and weakness, from 0 to 10, with the middle point, 5, being an acceptable level an official. A group of 4 people at levels 6, 6, 6 & 2, would have an average of 5. It is clear that well over half are above average.

I'm not trying to be pedantic, I realise that over a much larger group of people this might not be AS releveant an argument. But I would still argue that it is more than unfair to criticise the many because of the actions of the few. Especially when those in question are all unpaid volunteers.

I love the idea of a code of conduct, and think one is probably needed, but I would suggest that it work both ways and define competition etiquette for both officials and competitors, and more importantly the relationship between the two. Many of the rules applying to competitors could then be sifted out of the technical rules rendering these more straightforward.

On the fire safety front I think the inclusion of marshals in fire protective gear and equipped with seatbelt cutters is a no brainer. Very little extra effort, tiny amount of extra cost, massive increase in safety, orders of magnitude better than panic brakes and the likes.

06-06-2012, 05:12 AM

Originally posted by Tobias:
I agree that this should be defined in the rules. This is, why we are having this discussion.
Tobias,

Thanks. And, yes, I am having this discussion to hopefully lessen the chance of another team going through similar problems.
~~~~~o0o~~~~~

Originally posted by Dunk Mckay:
A group of 4 people at levels 6, 6, 6 & 2, would have an average of 5. It is clear that well over half are above average.
...
it is more than unfair to criticise the many because of the actions of the few.
Dunk,

I am not criticising the many Messrs 6, 6, and 6. As volunteers, I applaud them.

But I am worried about Mr 2! Especially when he goes out of his way to undo the good work of the 6s. So if Mr 2 bans a car that was passed by the scrutineers 6, 6, and 6, then I think he deserves criticism.

I agree that some sort of "code of conduct", or some method of reviewing performances of all FSAEers (on both "sides"), would be a good thing. This would require some kind of "critical" review, which is, again, a good thing.

I repeat that "criticism", "critical thinking", and similar concepts, are good things. I really don't understand why they have fallen out of fashion.

Anyway, I reckon if the "rules" of a society can't be discussed in a rational manner, then there are only two possible results. Tyranny, or anarchy, neither very good.

Z

Dunk Mckay

06-06-2012, 06:00 AM

So ideally, if a decision is made by one official the team do not believe is fair, or in keeping with the rules, they can appeal to a second official. Should an agreement not be reached between these two, a third should be called apon to throw the deciding vote. Decision is then signed off.

In addition, once a decision has been signed off be it by one, two or three officials, as described above. It cannot be withdrawn, except in the interest of safety.

Perhaps a simple form of some sort? Hopefully it can be a dynamic system, no big hoola about going to a room/tent somewhere, just call someone over for a few mintues to agree and sign the form, and then back to work.

Matt Clark

06-07-2012, 06:31 AM

I would also like to voice my opinion with regards to the inertia kill and the possible inclusion of a 'panic' kill.

I understand the intention behind such a trail of thought, but i think the nail has been hit on the head previously, that fire is really the main thing of concern to competitors and organisers alike.

Regardless of this, I have always had the opinion that fire supression recieves far too little a thought at both events and driver training/ practice. coming from many years in the RFS in rural australia I still cringe when the only fire safety i see is a guy in shorts and t-shirts holding a few kilo dry powder extinguisher, which he probably wont even shake before using. There is no way he can hope to supress any heat from a fuel fire, let alone to try and extinguish a fire. and you see it everywhere, from test days to national competitions. End of rant, appologies,

Thrainer

06-09-2012, 02:32 PM

Some points in the FSAE 2013 rules draft which have caught my attention:

A4.6 Driver Restrictions
I don't understand why a driver who has driven for a professional racing team is not allowed to compete in FSAE. On the other hand, if Adrian Newey decided to go back to university and join an FSAE team, he would be allowed to compete in the Design Event, wouldn't he? My opinion is, if a team can convince a "professional" driver, who is also a student, to compete in FSAE, they should be allowed to. Also, who is going to check the racing history of all drivers to see if any of the teams they were part of had full-time employees?

D8.20 Fuel Efficiency
I applaud this change, as I believe it makes for more entertaining endurance runs (slow driving isn't rewarded as much).

T5.6 Head restraint
I don't understand the intention of the "tangent to the rear of the driver's shoulders and the back of the helmet" rule. I imagine such angles that are prohibited would mean the driver's head is terribly leaned forwards. Also, what is the definition of the Seat-back Angle on a curved seat? I haven't seen many teams with a Seat back line as straight as in Figure 12.

Part AF (alternative frame rules)
Has anybody checked yet if the current requirements can be met with their actual spaceframe/monocoque?

T7.4 Brake Panic Switch
As pointed out be others, there have long been several means of stopping a runaway car: Two redundant braking systems (generally producing more torque than the engine/motors can generate) and an emergency switch in the cockpit, shutting down the powertrain. Given the fact that drivers might be required to push the brake pedal with more than 1000 N several times every lap, I don't see how this switch is able to distinguish a panic situation from a normal driving manoeuvre. The origin of this rule was probably the incident in the Brake Test Area at FS2010.

BTW, teams entering FS2012 with an electric vehicle need to have a Brake Panic Switch installed. Can anybody tell from experience how the implementation went?

T6.5 Steering
Interesting, it seems they are giving the DUT10 steering system a chance. So, "steer-by-wire" ? "steer-by-cable".

JulianH

06-10-2012, 08:24 AM

To add what Thrainer said about the driver restrictions:

I guess one of the Team leaders of Bath raced in GP2, so there are not only professional drivers who jump into the cockpit at the competitions. Some of them are working the whole year on the car. It cannot be possible to exclude them.

Another point especially concerning the EV part:

With the TSAL-Visibility rule, the winged eCars are restricted in their rear wing design (especially the endplates).

I know from different teams that they had to change something. (e.g. Running the rear wing lower than they wanted...)

I think it's not fair if eCars and cCars are competing against each other to have this rule.

Of course it is important to have the TSAL visible but the rear view is not so important (the car is driving away from the spectator..). Another possibility would be to restrict this area for all cars. TSAL for everyone http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kevin Hayward

06-10-2012, 08:34 PM

Rule A1.2 states that teams are tasked with creating a car for the non-professional, weekend, competition market.

The main issue though is how many points a pro driver can bring to a team. I will provide an example for this, using Swinburne in Australia (a top 20 world ranked team). Note that I could give plenty of examples of this and I do not mean to paint Swinburne in a negative light. In 2010 their top driver (who drives professionally) outperfromed their second best driver by the following margins:

Autocross: 4.8s
Endurance: 2.4s (on average for 16 laps)

(This data was collated from the natsoft timing website so please confirm it if you wish). Lap times for both events were around 50s.

Now lets put that into a points advantage (using a baseline lap time of 50s and Autocross worth 150 points):

Autocross: 65 points
Endurance: 18 points (The driver only contributes half the endurance time)
Total: 83 points

This is a pretty big advantage from one driver. This does not include the fact that a professional driver is likely to be able to use less fuel, collect less penalties, and have a massive impact on vehicle tuning. The implication of this is that one of the best ways to buy performance in a FSAE car is to hire a good up and coming professional driver.

Once again please note that I am only using Swinburne here as an example. The driver was an integral team member and was not hired. But just because they and many other teams in similar situations have been following the intent of the rules it does not eliminate the possibility of abuse. With so much to gain I would prefer the rule that prevents competition abuse before protecting the right to drive of a handful of FSAE students who also happen to be professional drivers.

As to Thrainers comments compaing Adrian Newey to a pro driver it is not even close to the same situation, unless teams are planning to hire Sebastian Vettel. If a team managed to get Adrian for the weekend he could perceivably only help with the design event. What would his points score advantage be? I would say at absolute best he might lift a teams design event performance by 20-30 points. If you could hire him for the whole year it would be different as he could have quite a large impact. The reality of the situation is that it is much easier, cheaper and more effective for a team to hire a pro driver than it is to make the same points by hiring a professional designer.

Kev

JulianH

06-10-2012, 09:09 PM

Kevin, that's an interesting point, that you are stating.

The car is created for the non-professional weekend racer, ok. But in my opinion, the Ferrari Enzo is also for non-professionals and still, Michael Schumacher helped with the development...

To be more serious:

A good driver is worth a lot of seconds per lap, everybody knows that. But maybe, the second driver of Swinburne was just not that good. We had 2-3 seconds difference between two non-professional drivers (our best two...).

On another thought, there are some "old" FSAE racers out there who raced these cars for 5-6 years and maybe will beat most of the professionals (you can't just buy a prof. race driver, give him the car and expect that he will destroy everything, if he haven't driven such a car before, he needs also testing time...) just by experience.

Should we ban these outstanding drivers too?

Kevin Hayward

06-10-2012, 09:19 PM

JD944

I also think it was a mistake to remove the rule that limited how many competitions a single driver could do. This is not supposed to be a driving competition. I have no issues with teams getting benefit from effective driving programs, but drivers that drive for 5-6 years (or more) are taking away seat time (with its educational benefits) from other students. I think we shoudl return to a cap on the number of years a driver can drive.

It would also help if you have some time working with professional drivers to realise how much better they are than even the long term FSAE drivers.

Kev

JulianH

06-10-2012, 10:37 PM

Kevin, it is one possibility to limit the competitions of a driver.

To be honest, I don't like this approach, I think the "live and let live" of FSAE is just fine.

I mean, there are so many advantages and disadvantages of the different teams, so why start restritcting drivers.

Our university does not have business students or anything else. So responsible for sponsoring, marketing, static events (particulary business plan...), recruiting, the team events (rollout, sponsor events, the events themselves..) everything is done by mechanical engineers. We can do it, but of course, business students or comparable would be better. So how many points does this cost overall?

On the other hand, we can write our bachelor thesis about the project. So "deep dive" into some area. How many points does this give us?

Our team is based on about 20 Students. Other teams hit triple digits. How many points?

FSAE-A 2010 was won by Monash. They had the wind tunnel. How many points would they have lost if their university wouldn't allow them to use the wind tunnel?

Some German universities get near to 50.000€ from their school. Other teams don't get one penny. So they have to invest more into sponsoring, therefore they cannot focus solely on designing the car...

I could go on for a long time.

Summing up, I guess it is really hard to give every team the same "starting position". And therefore I think if Bath or Swinburne have the possibility to "use" an experienced driver, they should do it.

Cheers,

Julian

Kevin Hayward

06-11-2012, 01:29 AM

Julien,

In concept I have no issue with that approach, but how do you stop teams hiring professional drivers? It can be done easily by enrolling the driver in one class at uni for legality. While I am fairly sure that teams are not doing this at the moment, you can't eliminate the possibility. Furthermore the stakes of FSAE are getting higher and it is now much more benefit for universities to do well.

Kev

TMichaels

06-11-2012, 02:07 AM

This discussion will go on forever between the few teams that have professional drivers and those who don't.

The teams with a professional driver (no matter, if he/she is a ringer or not) of course want to keep their competitive advantage regarding this matter. The other teams do not want them to have this advantage.

I agree that this (with the current aero rules) could be compared to having access to a wind tunnel or not. Maybe teams should be allowed to choose between using a wind tunnel or having a professional driver. Jokes aside: Using a wind tunnel and interpreting the data still requires a lot of engineering. The car's performance is increased by engineering.
Having a professional driver in the car could lift a mediocre car's event result up into the upper third. Given that this is a design competition this does not sound right to me.
If you have a driver who was well trained by the team, then the team built the driver and this again involved team knowledge, but I also agree that there should be a time window in which a driver is able to take part in FS events, for example 3 years.

RenM

06-11-2012, 02:14 AM

About the professional Driver discussion:
there is something you must not forget. A professional driver without enough seat time can be beaten by a normal driver, just because racing in FSAE is so much different. So unless the professional driver is an integral part of the team with a lot of seat time, the competition advantadge can be neglected.

whiltebeitel

06-13-2012, 02:38 AM

Originally posted by Kevin Hayward:
In 2010 their top driver (who drives professionally) outperfromed their second best driver by the following margins:

Autocross: 4.8s
Endurance: 2.4s (on average for 16 laps)

(This data was collated from the natsoft timing website so please confirm it if you wish). Lap times for both events were around 50s.

Now lets put that into a points advantage (using a baseline lap time of 50s and Autocross worth 150 points):

Autocross: 65 points
Endurance: 18 points (The driver only contributes half the endurance time)
Total: 83 points

This is a pretty big advantage from one driver. This does not include the fact that a professional driver is likely to be able to use less fuel, collect less penalties, and have a massive impact on vehicle tuning. The implication of this is that one of the best ways to buy performance in a FSAE car is to hire a good up and coming professional driver.

Once again please note that I am only using Swinburne here as an example. The driver was an integral team member and was not hired. But just because they and many other teams in similar situations have been following the intent of the rules it does not eliminate the possibility of abuse. With so much to gain I would prefer the rule that prevents competition abuse before protecting the right to drive of a handful of FSAE students who also happen to be professional drivers.

Kev

At A&M, we do as much as we can to get the best drivers in our cars, and we hold driver tryouts to find the best fit for us. We had narrowed it down to 8 people to try out for 2 spots for autocross and endurance. We had drivers that had lived in racing karts for about a decade, and those that had never raced anything before FSAE.

The variance between the top drivers with professional experience and the best rank novices were 1.5% in autocross and 2% in endurance.

The fastest driver I have seen in the FSAE cars here at A&M was never a professional driver, and he set the fastest skidpad time at FSAE West 2007. This "pro" rule would not prevent the advantage that he brought to our team.

Once you decree that "Pro" drivers are not allowed, there will be the complaint that Team X has an unfair advantage because Team Y traded drivers with them at a non-FSAE drive day and picked up a 5-10% advantage. DO you fix this by making one driver that drives all the cars? How is a team tune the car then?

I feel the rule regarding professional drivers is vague and very difficult and resource-intensive to enforce. If it cannot be enforced effectively and evenly, then what good is it?

Kevin Hayward

06-13-2012, 03:29 AM

I think the rule is trying to prevent teams hiring drivers who have no affiliation with the team on an educational basis. As the rules stand right now there is an advantage to hiring drivers that teams have not taken advantage of. While there is a case for effective FSAE driving programs being able to produce drivers equivalent to pro drivers, teams can avoid a lot of the hassle by hiring. It wouldn't cost much to bring a driver in for a few days of testing and then an event, and if you ran a cost-benefit analysis of it I would imagine more teams would take that route.

Furthermore having worked with professional drivers I am fairly sure that teams both overestimate the performance of their drivers and underestimate the abilities of professional drivers. There is a big difference between someone that has raced karts their whole life and someone who recieves money to drive. It is a hard thing to get someone to pay you for driving a racing car and there are a lot of hopefuls that try. Those that end up "professional" are genuinely very good. While it might be too much to expect that they can match someone who has driven FSAE cars for a while in their first go, but I would bet it wouldn't take long for the average professional driver to match and better 95% of the drivers in FSAE.

I am certainly not advocating trying to equalise teams performances, or nullify hard earnt advantages. What I am against is the possibility of teams being able to buy drivers and deny seat time to people working on the cars. We need engineers with true practical experience, and in racing (and automotive) that includes some amateur seat time. If we end up with FSAE running pro drivers (or teams running the same drivers for 8+ years) we lose that educational opportunity.

Kev

whiltebeitel

06-13-2012, 05:03 AM

Do you not feel that this is already covered by A 4.2, where all team members must be degree-seeking graduate or undergraduate students (or graduated within the past 7 months)? The driver would have to be enrolled in a degree-seeking program prior to the competition, a SAE member, and THEN would be hired for a few days to lay down a few hot laps.

I do agree a "Ringer" driver like Dario Franchitti driving for any FSAE team at competition would be outside of the spirit of the event, but I do not feel it's absolutely necessary to have only those that built the car drive it in all the competition events. Is there any clear occurrences where a definitively "Pro" driver came and significantly skewed the results?

Sure, the team that builds it should drive the car, that's what we do with our older cars in the fall and with the new car after competition, as it gives the students gratification for their work and an idea of how their designs work.

I still feel the rule is not easily enforceable, How is the staff going to determine if any driver ever entered a race with a team that had at least one full time employee? Would the possession of a professional racing license be easier to determine?

Charles Kaneb

06-13-2012, 08:41 AM

The driver is an integral performance component of the car, and its selection and development are one of the most important parts of the process...

whiltebeitel and I were both in these driver tryouts and got the 3rd and 4th fastest raw times in endurance, around 3 seconds in 220 off our #1 and #2 drivers. We had drivers at the first driver tryout (where we ran virtually every member of the team) who were 5 seconds per 30 off the pace.

A driver who's consistent, who knows what he or she likes in a car's handling, who knows what the adjustments do, and who is fast when the green flag flies, is absolutely essential to the development of one of these cars. You can chase a car's setup around in circles indefinitely if the driver does not know what's going on.

Oh, one more thing. I raced for CFMotorsports for a few races in 2010. CFMotorsports is the racing team of Mike and Lee Camarra's motorcycle-part machine shop, their full time business. They rented me a shifter kart, transported it to the race, and provided tools, supplies, and assistance to me. Would I be eligible?

JWard

06-13-2012, 10:05 AM

Jason Tahincioglu raced (races?) in gp2, so someone who would be considered a professional driver by anyone's measure, and he raced for team bath racing last year. Someone could look up his time compared to his team mates in endurance / auto x (I do not know where to find the info). However, I agree with whiltebeitel, I don't think the results would have been significantly skewed.

Regarding the discussion, I think from the above example, it is likely the students and the FSAE team (which I understand has a good knowledge hand over year to year) walked away with a more rich experience than if you had novice / amateur drivers in the car. In a case like this I firmly support having a pro driver on the team. (I don't know how much involvement he had in the team, but I'm fairly sure he was involved all year round)

Overall, I have no problems with teams using professional drivers, as long as they go to the university and are active within the team for a significant portion of the year (i.e. their input isn't just seat time during testing and setting some hot laps in competition and buggering off again). If there are instances of this, I think it's a little hard to police considering the frequency this probably occurs within FSAE. If it became a frequent thing, then I agree something should be done, and the event organisers should look into it more deeply!?

JulianH

06-13-2012, 10:48 AM

In Germany, the first driver of Bath was 1,5s faster than the second driver.

I think this is a "normal" margin between two drivers.

e.g. the second driver of Ox.Brookx was 5 (!) seconds faster than the other driver and I haven't heard about a professional driving for them...

Boffin

06-14-2012, 07:51 PM

Just to clear our case up a bit for some people's opinions.
We at Swinburne have been tremendously lucky with "pro" drivers. Now at no stage have we paid these guys or have cheated the rules.

We have had both Tim Blanchard (07-10) and Lucas Dumbrell (08) drive for us, during this time they were completing a bachelor of business at Swinburne.

Did it help? A resounding YES.
I remember fondly with the 09 car. We had done 2ish months testing with Johnny (team leader), yet when Blanchard hoped in it he was quicker than Johnny on the 2nd lap.

But even outside of that we have been lucky with our drivers. Our two quickest guys (removed from Tim) have both had motorsport experience in either rallying or go-karting and can lap pretty close to one another, only a few seconds behind what Tim can do. But behind them you have me, who is 20kg heavier than them, with no motorsport experience (ok, driving dad's go-kart at around the age of 7) and is just slower than them.

So with that information, should we be penalised for running "pro" drivers, when we've followed what has been set out in the rule book?

Kev, which second driver did you take? The morning or afternoon driver?
I ask because Johnny who was paired with Tim in the afternoon was actually slower than Matt who drove first in the morning. I'll have a look at my data tonight, which is all at home on my laptop, and see what I can come up with.

Kevin Hayward

06-14-2012, 09:54 PM

Boffin,

The one I took as the second quickest was the driver in the morning. In terms of quickest lap time he was only 1.1s behind Tim, but Tim was so consistent that on average it ended up 2.4s. It is interesting to note that Tim's average lap time was just better than the other drivers best.

Once again I want to reiterate that Swinburne's drivers in no way broke the existing rules. Also they are not the only team to have run professional drivers. Just the best case I could think of in Australia.

Kev

Boffin

06-15-2012, 12:24 AM

Yes Tim may be faster overall all, but taking in penalties would close the gap significantly.
Such as in endurance when he took out 4 or 5 cones in one hit at the start of the overtaking lane, because he "wanted to try and go through there flat" http://www.fordforums.com.au/images/smilies/Smilies/sulkoff.gif

Dunk Mckay

06-15-2012, 01:13 AM

Originally posted by Kevin Hayward:
Boffin,

In terms of quickest lap time he was only 1.1s behind Tim, but Tim was so consistent that on average it ended up 2.4s.

It's a key point right there to note the consistency of a a pro driver. While some might compare just the fastest laptimes, consistent times are far more valuable. I would rather test with someone who can put in laps consistently within a second or two of their average than someone who's times vary by 5-10 seconds but has the same or even a faster average time. And to be honest unless there was a massive average speed advantage to the incosistent driver(hard to imagine) I'd rather run with consistency at an event too.

As engineers, one thing we try to do when optimising systems is to eliminate variables, having more consistent drivers is one of these things. In future careers, those of us that end up working in motorsport looking to optimise lap times would settle for nothing less than a pro driver. So I would be more than happy to see pro drivers used for car setup, because then you'll see cars really performing at their best. If you can either afford or get a rpo for cheap/free then it's no different to any other cost/sponsorship difference between teams.

However running a pro driver at competition does give a massive non-engineering advantage to those that can source them. What with it being an engineering competition I see that as a bad thing.

The only issue you end up with is how much you test with a pro driver and how much practice you give to team members that will drive at comp. You're going to have to compromise, which, as we're repeatedly told, is what engineering is all about.

Thrainer

06-17-2012, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by Kevin Hayward:
Rule A1.2 states that teams are tasked with creating a car for the non-professional, weekend, competition market.

[sarcasm=on]
So, is this rule banning FS Austria for having autocross on Thursday and endurance on Friday?

If the rule prohibiting professional drivers comes into effect, teams will have to spend even more money. They not only have to hire drivers, but also pay them for NOT joining a professional racing team before their FSAE career is over.
[sarcasm=off]

Originally posted by whiltebeitel:
I still feel the rule is not easily enforceable, How is the staff going to determine if any driver ever entered a race with a team that had at least one full time employee? Would the possession of a professional racing license be easier to determine?
I completely agree. IF such a rule is needed, better make it very clear who is legal and who is not.

Going one step further in the direction of Kevin's thoughts: You could have a professional racing team or just some individuals test and tune your car, make best use of the short time before competition. Is this legal? Sure it's ok when a professor gives you some hints... but at which point is it against the spirit or rules to have professional help?

If you could choose, what would you rather have, a driver with professional racing experience or:
- a windtunnel
- a cruden simulator
- a 7 post shaker
- ten motivated team members
- a school bus and a huge trailer
- an autoclave
- USD 20'000 cash
- an airstrip for testing
- a 5-axis CNC mill
- a dynamic engine test bench
- a passionate and experienced faculty advisor?

In my opinion, all of these can be very useful, but only if the team is using them correctly. Having all of these resources doesn't necessarely make a winning team. It's the team's responsibility to source what they need to succeed, and be aware of their own strengths and weaknesses.
And back to topic: Why should the professional driver be banned while all other competitive advantages are allowed?

Regards
Thomas

NickFavazzo

06-17-2012, 06:33 PM

Thrainer hit it on the head, all other advantages are still allowed...

I would take the ten motivated students!

Kevin Hayward

06-17-2012, 07:43 PM

Happy to bite on this one Thrainer http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If this was an argument about not trying to restrict competitve advantages I would agree with you Thrainer.

Last year we had a faculty advisor meeting in Australia with the SAE-A organisers. As a group we didn't agree with everything, but we all agreed that the primary purpose of FSAE is for educational benefit rather than as a motorsport event. Finding a clear consensus on what makes the competition better for education much more difficult.

I don't want the elimination of competitive advantages between teams. In fact quite the opposite, I would prefer teams strive to find their unique advantages and improve on them. What I am opposed to is overt professional involvement in the team where it subtracts from the potential learning of the students. This can happen in any of the stages including design, testing, manufacture and driving. There are already rules that limit professional involvement in everything but the driving. I would also argue that access to excellent facilities is very different from a professional designing or driving your car.

The main points of the competition that I think can improve its focus on education include the following:

- Limit professional involvement beyond providing advice
- Limit costs to teams where there is no direct educational benefit to the expenses
- Provide a full product lifecycle for the students on the team (i.e. the same group designs, builds, tests and operates the vehicle)
- Have a competition structure that rewards design and manufacture over racing suchhigh points allocation for reliability (finishing endurance coupled with high TMax multiplier), more points for objective vehicle measures (accel & skidpan), and lower points for driver focused events (autocross)
- Limit proscribed designs for students (design rules should be in place to create an environment where good designs should be safe and not overly expensive, but should not limit innovative thinking or the need to respect design compromises)

Frankly I just cant see how allowing professional drivers in the competition improves the educational outcomes, but I can see a number of ways that it can reduce them. On the other hand with the exception of the bus and trailer all the other facilities you mention have great potential to add to the students learning outcomes.

Kev

NickFavazzo

06-17-2012, 08:23 PM

Kev, I believe other than simply installing a fast driver for competition, a good (not necessarily professional) driver that can provide good/accurate feedback for the race engineer is very valuable to the educational aspects of competition. Professional drivers are much more accustomed to focusing on more than just driving, they are settled enough to think about what the car is doing on track and are able to break down what the car is doing in turn-in vs what the driver is doing (ie they know when they messed up).

I think endurance deserves the high points value as if you cant design and manufacture a vehicle with the required life then your design is insufficient, yes "shit happens" but isn't that what safety factors are for? Definitely agree on your view for other dynamic events though.

In what way was it proposed (amongst the faculty advisers) to limit the prescribed designs?

Kevin Hayward

06-17-2012, 09:16 PM

Nick,

In my post I said I support a high Endurance points allocation. In previous posts I have outlined that while the autocross points allocation is less than endurance it ends up being worth more between the top teams of the competition. I believe this is a mistake that can be recified by changing the TMax calculation.

I see your point about feedback from professional drivers. Students will have more opportunity in industry to work with professional development drivers than they will to experience these things firsthand. I would prefer the designers (and developers) of vehicles to have firsthand knowledge of the vehicle design and development processes (including driving).

It is not my place to speak for the faculty advisors of Australia. The points I outlined are not from other advisors. I'm not sure how much impact the group will have, but it is good that SAE-A is consulting all stakeholders in the competition. The more specific the rules get concerning designs the more they dictate design directions. There have been a number of people very vocal about wanting a simple rulebook that isn't growing in size year by year.

Ideally we would have an open feedback mechanism for the major involved parties (SAE/IMechE, Universities, Industry) with polls for major decisions. Ideally there should be discussion on exisiting rules as well as introduced rules. In this forum we have been discussing the merits of one or two rules prior to their introduction. It is clear there is a lot of disagreement on both merit and implementation, which is a good thing. What we need after that is a follow-up process. Where are the discussions on the rules that have already been implemented badly or that may not be necessary or beneficial. Having rules that are not consistently getting more complex and specific is not as simple as never adding. Sometimes you can remove rules and restrictions. Sometimes some very basic assumptions can be brought up. How about these:

With the restictor and fuel economy rules do we need a rule for maximum engine size?

Should the leg template size be changed, or rules reworded?

What have been the benefits of the alternate frame rules, and should they be kept?

Do we need rule B6.5.5 specifying no concave sections on the steering wheel?

Do we need to restrict commonly available water additives for cooling systems?

Do you need Rule B8.12 (and similar) that state that any transmission or drivetrain can be used?

I could keep going with these all day.

Probably the best idea to having rules that are agreed upon is an open and transparent introduction period where feedback is sought in an organised fashion, with well defined targets and a post implementation review. As a group the Australian Faculty advisors were very keen to help support the competition and provide timely feedback when requested. I would imagine this would be true of faculty advisors internationally.

Kev

mdavis

06-19-2012, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by Thrainer:

If you could choose, what would you rather have, a driver with professional racing experience or:
- a windtunnel
- a cruden simulator
- a 7 post shaker
- ten motivated team members
- a school bus and a huge trailer
- an autoclave
- USD 20'000 cash
- an airstrip for testing
- a 5-axis CNC mill
- a dynamic engine test bench
- a passionate and experienced faculty advisor?

Out of this list of 12 things, we had 6-7 of these things. How did we finish? 33rd at Michigan. Just because our school has them (and the team has access to things) doesn't mean that the team is going to use things on this list. A minimum of 2 of the things on the list didn't get used, and more didn't get used to their potential. As has been stated, this competition is about project management, and using your resources to their potential is part of that. We've put very good autocrossers (guys that can compete at the national level) in our cars, and the difference in times is insane. The first time one of the guys drove our car he was 3 seconds faster than myself (4th fastest driver on the team with very little seat time) on a 30 second autocross course. A lot? Yes. Something that could be trained? Absolutely. The same guy has come out to a couple of our test days to talk with us about driving, and specifically how to get better at it. I would venture to say that most teams in the US (possibly Canada, not sure about Europe) have local SCCA regions where there are very very good autocrossers that can and will help team drivers if you simply ask them (they may want to take the car for a spin as well, but that's up to you guys).

I think it's going to be nearly impossible to police the professional driver rules the way they are written, so why not just go back to the way it was before?

The one thing I would like to see is an international ruling on what defines "open wheel" and "formula style" car. There's been nothing on that, and there were teams at MIS this year that would not have passed the cost judges definition at FSAE-A last year.

It would also be nice to see more safety on course during the dynamic events. We were sitting roughly mid track for autocross and endurance, and there were way too many close calls, even with us 30ft from the track. I was scared for both the drivers on course and the corner workers at many times during autocross. Watching a corner worker have to jump over 1 of the cars because word of a spun out car hadn't been passed back to the starting line was extremely scary.

06-19-2012, 07:32 PM

Kevin,

While I am not sure about the feasibility (or merit?) of banning professional drivers, I do agree with your other comments above regarding the rules.

I reiterate here some of your points that I think are most important.

"... the primary purpose of FSAE is for educational benefit..."

"[Less] proscribed designs ... (design rules should be in place to create an environment where good designs should be safe and not overly expensive, but should not limit innovative thinking or the need to respect design compromises)"

"... it is good that SAE-A is consulting all stakeholders in the competition."

"... a simple rulebook that isn't growing in size year by year."

"Ideally we would have an open feedback mechanism for the major involved parties (SAE/IMechE, Universities, Industry) with polls for major decisions."

"Sometimes you can remove rules and restrictions...
[eg.]
With the restictor and fuel economy rules do we need a rule for maximum engine size?"
~~~o0o~~~

Regarding freeing-up of the rules, I definitely agree that given the restrictor and fuel economy points, the maximum engine size rule is redundant. I would like to see the engine rules much more open, with diesels, two-(or N?)-strokes, gas turbines, whatever, all allowed. FSAE is supposed to be about encouraging creativity and imagination, for the educational benefit of the students! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Another rule that should go is the mandatory +/-1" suspension rule. Two+ decades of FSAE has produced countless pointlessly complicated suspensions, many with springs so stiff that nothing ever moves because the tracks are so smooth. So the students have learnt nothing about "real" suspension design, other than how to "talk the talk". I am reminded of Claude's (?) expression "intellectual masturbation".

Instead I suggest NO suspension rules, just a really bumpy track! If a team decides to cut costs and weight, and come with a go-kart, then they must suffer the bumps. If instead the team is clever enough to build a good suspension, then they go fast and win.

The major "safety" equipment in FSAE are the orange cones that define the track layout, in that they keep speeds low. If, along with the orange cones, there are also bumps and potholes scattered around the track, then there is a big incentive to build better suspensions, which in turn may lead to safer and more comfortable passenger cars.
~~~o0o~~~

For further examples of possible rule improvements, consider the HyperProRacer (http://www.hyperproracer.com). This is about as close to the core FSAE theme of "design and build a prototype small open-wheeled racecar for the amateur weekend...", that I have ever seen (except that it is intended for full sized racetracks, so is geared for 200+kph).

Please note that I have no connection with the father and son team of Jon and Dean Crooke, who build this car, other than having had a brief chat with them at a motor show a few years ago. They are nice guys, and I believe they genuinely want to improve both the safety and cost of amateur racing, rather than using "S&C" as a cynical excuse for banning anything C&I, as is typical in the upper echelons of motorsport.

If you look around their website you see that their two primary goals really are S&C. Nevertheless, the HPR would never get through FSAE scrutineering! Why?

1. The chassis is all wrong. All the tubes are curved!
(I consider the HPR's "safety cell" to be much better than any FSAE car I have ever seen. Necessary considering its 200kph Vmax. These guys know what they are doing.)

2. The tyres are 6"s!
(Too dangerous? Obviously not, given their extensive testing at 200kph. Cost? Their main reason for using go-kart tyres is to minimize the cost of "consumables" to the customers. Good thinking IMO.)

3. And I'm sure there are other Rule infringements (eg. template rules???). Can anyone see others?
~~~o0o~~~

Anyway, one last and very important quote from Kevin:

"Probably the best idea to having rules that are agreed upon is an open and transparent introduction period where feedback is sought in an organised fashion, with well defined targets and a post implementation review."

Z

Thrainer

06-20-2012, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by Kevin Hayward:
What I am against is the possibility of teams being able to buy drivers and deny seat time to people working on the cars. We need engineers with true practical experience, and in racing (and automotive) that includes some amateur seat time.

Kev, I might agree with your intentions, but do you think the wording/definition is reasonable and enforcement of the rule is feasible?
From my point of view, the most likely result of the new rule would be: The handful of teams which have an illegal driver simply nominate another driver with lots of racing experience, who never was part of a racing team with full time staff. Maybe a seasoned autocrosser, or an "amateur" karting champion. The "suspension guy" will still not drive the car.

Originally posted by mdavis:
We've put very good autocrossers (guys that can compete at the national level) in our cars, and the difference in times is insane.
Do all of these guys fall under rule A4.6 by racing for a team which provides a racing car and employs full time staff? Or would they be allowed at any FSAE event (after they enrolled at a university) even under the suggested rule?

What might be suggested as an alternative: "Team members are only allowed to drive at events during a maximum of two years." (I prefer a number of years over a number of events because the teams normally renew once a year and some teams go to 4-6 events a year, while others visit only one)

This would aim to have more students drive the car, as Kevin suggested. If the intent is not about event scores, but purely learning experience, we should also have rules that limit how many years you develop the same parts. If the same guy makes the driveshafts for five years, other students are denied the experience to make driveshafts. Maybe a better example: The same person would not be allowed to do the Presentation event for longer than wo years. This is relevant to event scores, as a bad Presentation can loose 30 points easily. There is also the theoretical possibility for teams to hire a professional presenter/salesperson for the event. So we need yet another rule.

You see, this rule opens a can of worms. Where to draw the line? And then, how are you gonna make sure everybody is following the rule?

Regards
Thomas

mdavis

06-20-2012, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by Thrainer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mdavis:
We've put very good autocrossers (guys that can compete at the national level) in our cars, and the difference in times is insane.
Do all of these guys fall under rule A4.6 by racing for a team which provides a racing car and employs full time staff? Or would they be allowed at any FSAE event (after they enrolled at a university) even under the suggested rule?

Regards
Thomas </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They would be allowed to drive in FSAE competition. They've never been paid to drive or driven for a team employing people. They just have experience with autocrossing and have done a lot of it. One of them is even an alumni of our University, just multiple years removed.

Kevin Hayward

06-20-2012, 08:28 PM

Thrainer,

I like your suggestion of limiting drivers to two years. I agree that years is easier to monitor and can be done by individual competitions. I have always thought that in terms of making the maximum 4 years, but 2 years seems much better when I think about it.

Currently a good driver program will try and find good drivers as early as possible to squeeze as many comps out of the good drivers as possible. This will result in 3-4 years of driving for one driver. It also means 3-4 years before the driving squad is fully rotated. Having a minimum of 4 years will not affect most driver training programs, it only stops teams taking it to ridiculous lengths (for example running the same driver for 7-8 years)

The current 3-4 year driver rotation means
- Each year you are only looking for 1-2 new members for the squad. This might mean trying out 6-10 extra drivers a year to fill those slots.
- You are encouraged to put large amounts of time and resources into just a couple of drivers (e.g. only need one good autocross driver).
- Reliability during testing and early manufacturing is overly critical. If a year occurs when not a lot of testing is run then a driver who has been in 3 comps before is not at a very large disadvanatge.
- Teams should also be looking for post-graduate or part-time students to have the main drivers drive for a long time. This disadvantages the bulk of full-time undergraduate students.
- The car should be built around long term good drivers.

Looking at what would happen moving to a 2 year driver limitation:
- The driving squad would have to increase in numbers. Older members who have already run 2 years of driving could be actively mentoring and training, and you would need an effective early training mechanism to get drivers up to the same standard as is usually possible after driving for 3-4 comps. Likely that you would actively be training two squads of drivers (development and comp)
- Training methods are more important to get drivers ready for their 2 years running.
- Reliability is critical. A year of testing missed would be horrible if drivers have only 2 years of competition.
- The car must be made to be suited to a wider range of driving styles.

A rule change like this would generally double the number of students that get to drive in competitions, encourage the sharing of testing time between more drivers, would encourage reliability and increased testing. I think these are all very good outcomes.

Incidently it would have meant as a student that I would have had much less seat time. I was always aware of how much of the teams resources were going into me as a driver to get good comp finishes. While I wouldn't have wanted to give up the opportunity for so much time in the cars it would have been to the benefit of many other students.

Kev

Dunk Mckay

06-21-2012, 01:14 AM

A two year rotation would be good. I'd like to say I'm not biased, but my entire team essentially works on a two year rotation due to the way it is run by the university. There are a few exceptions with some overly keen students unofficially helping out before they reach 3rd/4th year.

I'd have thought that a rule limiting drivers to students that are enrolled on a full time course at the university would help. I'm not sure how that sort of things work in other countries, but for the UK at least you couldnt't really just put their name on a list somewhere. To be sure you'd need a document, signed by a head programs or similar, stating that the student is fully enrolled, attends the course and has not done so simply to drive the car.

Now my bias might start to show here a little, but I hope not. Good drivers can be harder to find, and driving may not be considered an essential part of an engineers education. On the other hand good engineering students are usually abundant in an FS/FSAE team, and knowing how to present engineering work is an important part of their education. So if anything I think limiting the number of years someone can participate in static events could be more important.
I'd like to say a single year for cost and business, and two years for design. This would give a lot more studenst the chance to work on these skills. The counter-argument is that this doesn't give any motivation or opportunity for someone to learn from their mistakes and work on it more, other than coaching the person doing it the following year(s).

Rex Chan

06-24-2012, 06:14 AM

I scanned this thread, so sorry if this has already been mentioned - I would much prefer a group of good/pro drivers to drive all the cars at comp (maybe sep event or AutoX). This removes the driver element, while giving teams good feedback on how their cars perform.

We kind of do this in FSAE-A at the Driver Swap (thanks MArty!), and it's really valuable.

And I agree with NickF about having a good driver makes things a lot easier/learn more for the engineers (i.e. us Engine guys like consistant data to tune fuel, and I'm guessing so would most other subteams). In teams like at Melbourne, it's a lot of blind leading the blind. So it's a good idea if you can get pro drivers to help you out. If FSAE is like an experiemnt, and we are collecting data on track days, we want to remove the driver variable, don't we?

Rex Chan

06-24-2012, 06:59 AM

About the brake background: what does black bg mean? Ours is a thin red light (LEDs behind red plastic - LED Autolamps Recessed Strip Lamp) It has no black bg. What is this rule supposed to help with? Sorry - just confused.

For the panic button to work, you gotta lock the wheels right? So the car is already stopped. If you lose pressure, you trip the BOT. Seems redundant, as others have said.

Thibault HUGUET

09-07-2012, 11:23 AM

When the final rules will be available ?

TMichaels

09-08-2012, 03:13 AM

I can confirm that the brake panic switch will not be part of the 2013 rules for the IC cars and that it will be changed massively for the EVs.

mdavis

09-09-2012, 01:40 PM

Tobias,

Any idea when a final rules document will be published? Last year, the rules were out by July/August. I'm sure we're not the only ones wondering this...

Thanks,
-Matt

TMichaels

09-09-2012, 03:00 PM

Matt,
currently it is hard to tell. The integration of the EV rules and the fact that this is a new rules cycle created more workload than expected. I can only confirm that we are finalizing the rules right now, but as you probably know: This process is iterative and it is hard to give a specific date, sorry.

custerjw

09-09-2012, 05:48 PM

Tobias-
Absolutely, we all understand how hard all the volunteers are working on their own time to get the rules together. We know you'll let us know as soon as you do, and appreciate you keeping us informed!

Thanks

John

mdavis

09-09-2012, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by TMichaels:
Matt,
currently it is hard to tell. The integration of the EV rules and the fact that this is a new rules cycle created more workload than expected. I can only confirm that we are finalizing the rules right now, but as you probably know: This process is iterative and it is hard to give a specific date, sorry.

Tobias,
Sounds good. We were simply getting curious as to what was going on, and I hadn't heard anything since the rules draft was published. Good to know that work is ongoing, and we greatly appreciate all the time the volunteers put into these competitions and the rules.

After re-reading my previous post, I could see it coming off as dick-ish, so I'm sorry if it came off that way.

Thanks,
-Matt

TMichaels

09-10-2012, 01:20 AM

Don't worry Matt, no offense taken.
We are not happy with violating our own deadline either and, as said before, trying to finish as soon as possible. It should be a matter of days, but again: I can not make promises.

We are aware that many teams worldwide are eagerly waiting for the rules to be released.

TMichaels

09-11-2012, 01:26 AM

Right now the final pre-publication draft is circulated in the committee. Stay tuned.

Bill Riley

09-13-2012, 07:25 PM

Rules are published on fsaeonline.com and will be posted to SAE.org in the next day or two.

TMichaels

09-14-2012, 12:52 AM

Link for the lazy people:
FSAE2013 Rules (http://www.fsaeonline.com/content/2013%20FSAE%20Rules.pdf)

AxelRipper

09-14-2012, 08:46 AM

Didn't see anything worth complaining about in the changes, everything seemed quite clear.

One brief clarification possibly though: T8.4.1 Note:If equipped, the engine drive sprocket cover may be used as part of the scatter shield system.

Believing that means that you can use whatever is used as the stock chain guard around the drive sprocket?

Andrew89

09-14-2012, 01:52 PM

I would like that clarified too, the stock 600rr one is plastic if I remember right.

Originally posted by AxelRipper:
Didn't see anything worth complaining about in the changes, everything seemed quite clear.

One brief clarification possibly though: T8.4.1 Note:If equipped, the engine drive sprocket cover may be used as part of the scatter shield system.

Believing that means that you can use whatever is used as the stock chain guard around the drive sprocket?

Go Pitt!

Luniz

09-15-2012, 03:09 PM

Rule S3.2 a): In the Design event, the business logic case will be used to identify how the team determined the trade off between design for performance and design for manufacture and cost, how these requirements were considered in the overall concept and whether these were achieved in the final vehicle.

I don't really get this. Does that mean, a team can get "penalized" or awarded lesser points for showing up in the design event with let's say milled uprights or a rapid prototyping intake?

JulianH

09-15-2012, 03:19 PM

Lutz, I don't know if the BLP will be exactly like in Silverstone 2011, but if so:

In the BLP you had to choose the number of cars you plan to sell. Some teams choose 15 cars, some 1000. If you are now running, let's say carbon fibre rims, you have to argue, how it would be possible to manufacture enough rims.

Manufacturing 60 rims is maybe possible per year, 4000 probably not.

In Silverstone, they asked us (me) questions like "What if it had to be 20% cheaper, what would you do on part X and what would be the consequences?" If you have an answer for the first question and can argue that the cheaper solution does not fit your design goals, then you shouldn't get "penalties".

What we experienced is, that Cost and Design judging merged quiet a bit...

but as I said, I don't know how the BLP will be handled in 2013.

Regards,

Julian

Luniz

09-15-2012, 03:39 PM

This is not the business presentation event... this section is new to the rules. As far as I understand, a team has to produce this "business logic case" well in advance (6-9 months before the competition) and it is then used to judge all three static events. To make it clear, I have added the complete section below.

The Design, Cost and Business Presentation judges will use the business logic case to verify that the information presented at each static event is consistent with the overall objectives as outlined in the Static Events Rules.
(a) In the Design event, the business logic case will be used to identify how the team determined the trade off between design for performance and design for manufacture and cost, how these requirements were considered in the overall concept and whether these were achieved in the final vehicle.

(b) In the Cost event, the business logic case will be used to determine that the cost target was met for the same design solution and how Cost was integrated into the overall concept and the iterative design process.

(c) In the Business Presentation event, the business logic case will be used to assess whether the business presentation is appropriate for the market and business strategy that the team has identified