Grandfather Rules

[Kevin Hayward]

I am inviting comments on an issue that predominantly affects Australian teams competing internationally.

As it currently stands Australian (and other late competitions) teams build cars to the year of competition. For example the Australians build to the 2012 FSAE rules for the 2012 comp. Unfortunately changes to the rules for the following year can make a 2012 car illegal for 2013, with potentially large changes required to meet new compliance. Furthermore given the release dates of rules it is not generally viable to design an Australian car to meet the following year's rules.

ECU Racing has hit a situation like this with the addition of legs to Percy and changes to front bulkhead rules for 2013. Both of these are very large initial design focused rules and are very difficult to accommodate post build. As such it is looking likely that the team will not be able to compete in the UK as planned.

Frankly I see this as a major disappointment and not in the spirit of promoting international competition.

I see 2 potential solutions for the future and wouldn't mind hearing some feedback on this issue, proposed solutions or alternative solutions.

1. Publish the rules at least a year in advance. (i.e. 2015 rules are available before the 1st of Jan 2014) This allows teams to accommodate for changing rules, and is a much better than stating intentions to change rules.

2. Build in a grandfather clause for international teams. For example an international team will be able to compete in a competition if they can demonstrate that the car competed in an FS sanctioned event less than 10 months previously and was designed to be compliant to the international rules at the time.


Both of these ideas require that the rules are fairly uniform between competitions.

Feedback?

Kev

[mech5496]

Kevin,

No.1 would be better for all teams cause we could plan ahead, but IMO it would make any rule changes a bit hard to implement. No.2 sounds much more straightforward and it has been done in the past (see introduction of template rules).

[AndreasK]

Hi,

isnt't that already the case? I havent found a explicit source, but in the 2013 fsae rules it says under ARTICLE 15: POSSIBLE FUTURE RULES CHANGES: Notice of Possible Rule Changes for the 2015 Formula SAE Series

I would assume that there are no rule changes for 2014 and therefor the same overall rules. That can of course not be said for the event specific rules.

[TMichaels]

Hey,

if 2) is applied, I can already see teams starting to plan their season in order to squeeze the maximum out of the "older" rules. It would lead to increased load on the organization and teams could also complain it being an unfair advantage.

1) is probably possible and already partly applied with the section for possible future rule changes. However, you can never be safe, because incidents at competitions or "clever" design solutions by teams can always trigger a last minute rules change.
The FSAE rules committee strives to have a two year rules cycle. Thus it is likely that no major rule changes are introduced for 2014 with the next rules cycle starting in 2015.

The change in event specific rules can not really be controlled anyway as the different organizations obviously have different targets/mindset regarding the focus of the competition and adjust their rules accordingly.

[Jon Burford]

Maybe we should look at it differently, In most motorsport you don't see teams building a car to enter the last race of the season and then expecting to use it for the next year.
Maybe, if you want to compete Internationally you will have to build a car in time for those competitions and then use it last at the Australian event. I.e. ending the season with Australia rather than starting with it??

[TMichaels]

Jon,
the concept of motorsport-series you are referring to is to participate in every race, because the championship is awarded for the team/driver with the most points. It can not be applied to FS/FSAE.

It does not only affect Australian teams. Many European teams for example build their car for their first European event and then participate in the US in the following year for example.
They would hit the same barrier.
Thus all teams would theoretically have to build their car for the first event in the year.

Additionally many teams decide later, after their "home" event, that the car is worth being taken overseas. More money is available after a successful season, therefore it is sensible to also go there with the car/team that raised this money and promises being successful.

[Bemo]

Tobias is definitely right here. For us it was never clear at the beginning of a season if we were going overseas with the new car. We always made it dependent of funding and results at the European competitions which showed, that it is worth it to take that car overseas.

I think the only possible way is to have the rules published as early as possible. At least when we are talking about rules changes like the new percy rule with the legs. It is clear that it is very hard to change that if your frame is just too short for it. Minor changes are no problem. But somehting like this should be announced as early as possible.

Tobias, was there any particular incident which led to this rule? It definitely makes sense. I'm just wondering how the process to introduce this rule went.

[TMichaels]

Tobias, was there any particular incident which led to this rule? It definitely makes sense. I'm just wondering how the process to introduce this rule went.

I am sure that I have received the documents/discussion regarding this rule, but I can not remember and don't have the mails anymore either. Thus I am not able to help, sorry.

Just to make it clear what I was talking about before: an incident must not be an accident. It can also be something which a lot of teams understood wrong or which caused trouble/uncertainty at Scrutineering.

[Racer-X]

Just make all rules changes go into effect the "season" after they are implemented. This would mean that anything done before Michigan goes into effect in 2014 and anything after is a 2015 rule. Then the rules can be finalized before that year's build. If someone finds a loophole good for them we all had the same opportunity.

A grandfather clause would be a mess.

[Mbirt]

Originally posted by Kevin Hayward:
2. Build in a grandfather clause for international teams. For example an international team will be able to compete in a competition if they can demonstrate that the car competed in an FS sanctioned event less than 10 months previously and was designed to be compliant to the international rules at the time. I watched TU Graz win FSAE 2009 with their 2008 car that did not meet the new cockpit template rules. Have the rules been refined since to prevent this from happening? If strict enforcement in Europe is the problem, maybe ECU should just plan a trip to North America and enjoy our three lovely events that occur in one month's time?

[TMichaels]

Just make all rules changes go into effect the "season" after they are implemented. This would mean that anything done before Michigan goes into effect in 2014 and anything after is a 2015 rule. Then the rules can be finalized before that year's build. If someone finds a loophole good for them we all had the same opportunity.

That does not work for "quick fixes" which are safety relevant.

[TMichaels]

I watched TU Graz win FSAE 2009 with their 2008 car that did not meet the new cockpit template rules. Have the rules been refined since to prevent this from happening? If strict enforcement in Europe is the problem, maybe ECU should just plan a trip to North America and enjoy our three lovely events that occur in one month's time?

This was not a problem of enforcement of rules as it was allowed according to the FSAE 2009 rules:
"For 2009, teams whose cars do not comply with 4.1 or 4.2 will have 35 points deducted from their Design Event score."

4.1 and 4.2 define the templates.

Thus they received the respective point deduction.

This not possible anymore, therefore I would say that there is no chance of competing anywhere in 2013, if the car is not compliant to the 2013 rules. What makes you think that the US organizers are easy on enforcing rules?

[Mbirt]

Originally posted by TMichaels:
This was not a problem of enforcement of rules as it was allowed according to the FSAE 2009 rules:
"For 2009, teams whose cars do not comply with 4.1 or 4.2 will have 35 points deducted from their Design Event score."

4.2 and 4.2 define the templates.

Thus they received the respective point deduction.

This not possible anymore, therefore I would say that there is no chance of competing anywhere in 2013, if the car is not compliant to the 2013 rules. What makes you think that the US organizers are easy on enforcing rules? Thanks for the clarification, Tobias. Hopefully it doesn't prevent us from seeing our international friends at MIS this year. As for strictness of enforcement, I was just a freshman at the time and failed to recall the rule about the 35 point reduction from the design event score.

[Luniz]

Originally posted by Jon Burford:
Maybe we should look at it differently, In most motorsport you don't see teams building a car to enter the last race of the season and then expecting to use it for the next year.
Maybe, if you want to compete Internationally you will have to build a car in time for those competitions and then use it last at the Australian event. I.e. ending the season with Australia rather than starting with it??

The problem with this is: When does said "season" actually start, and when does it end? This becomes difficult when you take the Australian events into the equation...

Right now, the "season" starts with michigan (first competition to use the 2013 rules) and ends in Australia in dec. 2013 (last Competition with 2013 rules). The rules are published some time around october or november if I'm not mistaken. So right now, aussie teams are starting to design their new car according to 2013 rules, they won't have it finished in time for MIS or even FSG in August, they will have it finished in november, in time for the aussie event. But by that time, the 2014 rules will have been published, which outrules their cars for any other competition...

[Bemo]

And as a team it is also not such a great option to build a car according to "possible rules changes".
TU Graz did that in 09. Back then a possible rules change about prohibiting reclined driver position was given in the rules and they built their car according to that rule to prevent the US teams from whining again if they'd bring that car to MIS in 2010.
But then the rule wasn't introduced but they had already built their car according to it. So as a European or Aussie teams there isn't much you can do except building your car according to the rules which are valid at the beginnin of "your season" and see if you can put that car to overseas competitions.
Not the most satisfying solution, but the only other possibility I see would be that rules are announced early enough. But as Tobias already said, this is not always possible if issues concerning safety have to be fixed.

[penna]

That does not work for "quick fixes" which are safety relevant.

This seems fair enough but is there any reason the rest of the rules can't be posted a year in advance with these amendments made as needed (guessing if its a safety concern you wouldn't wait a whole year to change the rule). The "clever" designs which you talked about before, as long as they don't pose a safety concern perhaps could be given a blanket 50 point deduction similar to previously. This should leave the possibility of competing open for most teams, and should mostly avoid having teams penalized as well as "clever" designs are almost always in the minority.

Thanks for your input Tobias

[Racer-X]

I see the safety concerns but how often do those come up and what would be considered a safety concern?

Maybe safety concerns could be defined and those could be addressed on an as needed basis and rules like template, event scoring, sound etc. could be required to take effect at the completion in the "season" after they were drafted.

Penna, why should anyone be penalized for being creative? I always thought that was a large part of this series. I'd be happy to see cars run with design work arounds as long as they are safe.

[TMichaels]

When reading the following text, please remember that everything I am posting here or on Twitter are always my personal opinions and findings and are not considered to be an offical statement in any way. Maybe I should add that to my signature, however:

As a matter of policy the Formula SAE Rules Committee does not implement new rules without advance notice to teams. Rules which the Committee believes will have a significant effect on design are announced at least one year in advance of the year they will take effect. Possible changes to the rules are listed in Part T Article 15 “Possible Future Rule Changes”. The rules changes contemplated for 2013 were announced in the 2012 Rules which were released in early September 2011. The technical sections of the Rules, i.e. Parts T, AF, IC and EV, are revised on a 2 year cycle. The 2013 technical sections will remain unchanged in 2014. The electric rules are currently quite immature and therefore we anticipate several edits for 2014, however this will be an exception for 2014 only.

Our current plan is to release a draft version of the 2015 Rules for comments during the spring of 2014 and issue the final rules in August 2014. The non-technical sections, i.e. Parts A “Administrative”, S “Static Events” and D “Dynamic Events”, may be updated annually, but once again any change that will significantly influence design will only be made after a year’s notice. Please keep in mind that the Committee reserves the right to change any rule any time in the interest of participant protection or to correct an error.

I hope that helps.

[Michael Royce]

Kevin,
Tobias is correct. For many years, including those when I was Chairman of the rules Committee, teams were given a year and a half notice ((2 years for FSAE-A teams) on any change that effected the basic structure of the car. I am sure my successor Bill Riley and now, Andrew Deakin, have followed and will continue to follow the same policy. It appears so.

As far as Percy getting "legs", teams have had lots of warning. The change was first listed under Possible Future Rules in the 2010 Rules (page 50), again on page 63 of the 2011 Rules, and finally on page 59 of the 2012 Rules. And it is finally in for FSAE for 2013! Also, Formula Student (UK) had the (Percy legs) rule for the 2012 competition (page 14 of their Supp. Regs.)!!

Whether Oz teams are at a disadvantage for entering a second event by having their home event in December can be debated both ways. True, if they want to enter any second event, they have to comply with the rules for the following year. However, they have an advantage in that they have 15 months to build their car from the publication of the rules (in September every year) to their competition (in December of the following year). European teams that have their first event at FS Germany or FSAE Italy and want to enter a USA event (Michigan or California/Lincoln) have the same problem as Australian teams in that they have to comply with the rules of the following year. It has not appeared to be a problem for them. Or for RMIT, Wollongong, Monash and UWA who have all made the trip successfully to the USA and/or Europe.

[Kevin Hayward]

Tobias & Michael,

The possible future rule changes are just that - possible. When they are actually introduced the wording is often different and the numbers change. It is crazy to try and design and build a car to a non-confirmed rule change. Maybe the possible rule changes section in the document should be changed to a definite rules change for an upcoming year.

Not many of the rules changes are difficult to accommodate for post build, but ones concerning chassis' are. Furthermore the penalty for non-compliance is not running. I still think this is a silly way to go about the templates in general. It should be a penalty (maybe even a big one) if there is non-compliance, but a reasonable attempt has been made. Non-running should be reserved for the obvious attempts to subvert the template rules. On another note when the templates were introduced there was a year where non-compliance meant a penalty, with non-running the year after. This time there is not. I should note that the car only falls around 30mm short of the leg template rule.

One point to add is one of the rules that has changed that affected the car was a change to the composite bulkhead rules. This was not flagged in possible rule changes. It affects a major system in the car and is incredibly difficult (and expensive) to change post build.

Kev

[Max Trenkle]

The Percy legs rule has a big hole in it. Just sayin.

[Michael Royce]

Max,
Would you care to explain, please.

So far, in all the competitions in which we have used it, Formula Hybrid in 2011 and 2012 and Formula Student UK in 2012, it has done what was intended, i.e. positively locate Percy's "H" Point (Hip Point) a minimum distance from the pedals, so that the Roll Hoop heights can be checked without a long discussion with the team as to where Percy's butt should be.

[Max Trenkle]

Well the pedals can be shaped however you want them to be, and [you] used the word distance, which has a very broad meaning versus other words which could have more accurately described the "intent" of the rule.

Edit: The rules committee, not "you"