Formula Student 2012 proposed changes

[murpia]

Just a heads up that there are some interesting proposals to alter the FSUK event from 2012 onwards.

To avoid link hassle just Google 'Formula Student 2012 - A Vision of the Future' and you should find a pdf and an online questionaire.

Might be interesting to debate the ideas presented...

Regards, Ian

[murpia]

Just a heads up that there are some interesting proposals to alter the FSUK event from 2012 onwards.

To avoid link hassle just Google 'Formula Student 2012 - A Vision of the Future' and you should find a pdf and an online questionaire.

Might be interesting to debate the ideas presented...

Regards, Ian

[AxelRipper]

w w w. formulastudent . c o m / Libraries / Documents / FS2012_Proposal_30_Nov_1 . sflb . ashx

since my other one didnt have enough spaces in it apparently, heres the "link."

I'm curious if their rules will level out the classes enough to make each one competitive, or if you'll have to switch to a 1A style car in order to win.

Also, not so sure about the diesels not having a restrictor. But then again, i'm not sure how well 600cc diesels work.

[blister]

From my experience the biggest challenge for electric/hybrid cars is to improve the performance in Endurance. This is mainly due to the energy density and the energy. To drive the Endurance at full throttle with an electric car you probably will use more than 10 kWh, then again the limit is (was?) 7.5 kWh. 7.5 kWh weight at least 50 kg...

For Skidpad/AutoX/Acceleration i see big advantages for a pure electric car, because it can be built as light as a 4 Cylinder car and even have better control systems (faster, more complex, more accurate).

I don`t know if a hybrid can compete in all disciplines with a ICE or pure electric car. But a 600CC powertrain with a 20kW booster on the crank could perform well.

We came also to the conclusion that a our electric car would have been around place 3-5 in this years competitons. Let`s wait for 2011 when Stuttgart and Delft will fight their epic battle in Class 1A/FSE

[BeunMan]

The unrestricted diesel did bother me a bit, but i'm not into diesel engines and their performance with 600cc engines. Could be interesting.

While the ETH Zurich and Stuttgart cars performed quite well last year, I hope the other teams will get their efforts in order so we see more finishes in FSUK/FSG. The complexity of the power systems is not to be underestimated, and I think we will see more efforts in the future with full electric or alternative (hydrogen/hybrid) electric cars, but it's not for everyone.

Before the 'epic' battle, I hope to see the car running first. It took 8 cars of development (DUT03-DUT10) to get the lightweight concept phased out for electric so lets see how long this one lasts/how long it takes to get right. note: my opinions, no always the teams.

[RenM]

i think the changes to the point system are ridiculous. 150 points for fuel economy is way to much and will render 4 cylinders useless. I am okay with 100 points because like that you are forced to do something about your fuel economy, but it still isnt the most important factor. 150 points however will change balances.
Another thing i dont like are the powerlimits. 60kw is a bit low compared to a good 4 Cylinder car.
And the 400V Voltage Limit is annoying when you want to take part in FSE aswell.

[TMichaels]

Hey everybody,
we are also thinking about possibly merging the classes in the future.
I am interested in your opinion about merging classes. Are only the electric teams interested in competing against the combustion cars or is it also the other way round?
What are, in your opinion, necessary changes in the current rules to make it fair?

Regards,

Tobias

[Luniz]

Hi Tobi,

as I have already stated in that questionnaire of FS-UK I don't think that merging the classes is the way to go. The challenges related to the different propulsion methods are just too different and accordingly the rules would be very confusing, the scruitineering would be a pain and the design judging would be quite impossible to compare...

What I would suggest would be a gerealised set of rules for FSE, FSUK Class 1A, Formula Hybrid and so on, so that teams don't have to make sacrifices in order to build a vehicle which is compliant to different rules of different competitions. This has effectively drawn us away from building an electric vehicle (among other reasons...). It is hard to justify the effort of building a car for just one competition at which you are unsure about getting a place on the grid anyway...

[murpia]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TMichaels:
Hey everybody,
we are also thinking about possibly merging the classes in the future.
I am interested in your opinion about merging classes. Are only the electric teams interested in competing against the combustion cars or is it also the other way round?
What are, in your opinion, necessary changes in the current rules to make it fair?

Regards,

Tobias </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Are you thinking about merging Electric with 600cc Gasoline, or opening up to 250cc Hybrids and / or alternate fuels?

Regards, Ian

[TMichaels]

Merging Electric with Gasoline.

Regards,

Tobias

[Thrainer]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">... The challenges related to the different propulsion methods are just too different and accordingly the rules would be very confusing, the scruitineering would be a pain and the design judging would be quite impossible to compare... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

At FS Austria 2010, combustion and electric cars were running in one class in perfect harmony, so welcome to the future. In the Design Final, some judges did seem to have problems with the different propulsion systems, but others did it very well.

I see the biggest problem in the Cost Event. It's not really fair among combustion teams, but for electric teams it was even worse. The Sustainability Event at FS was a much better experience for me in every aspect. I hope for FSE 2011 that at least the AIR issue gets solved.

Concerning the power limit, I assume the measurements in the proposal come from our car. Despite a max power of 50 kW from the batteries, we achieved the 6th fastest sprint run. But, our drivetrain was limited at speeds &gt;60 km/h. In Italy, we had peak power of &gt;60 kW.
I would say you can compete with the combustion cars within a power limit of 60 kW, but it is clearly restricting your performance.

Regards,
Thomas

[Charlie]

Personally I am very opposed to the 150 pt Fuel Economy rule. I understand the motivation but it will significantly upset the balance of performance in a negative way.

[JasperC]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Thrainer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">... The challenges related to the different propulsion methods are just too different and accordingly the rules would be very confusing, the scruitineering would be a pain and the design judging would be quite impossible to compare... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

At FS Austria 2010, combustion and electric cars were running in one class in perfect harmony, so welcome to the future. In the Design Final, some judges did seem to have problems with the different propulsion systems, but others did it very well.

I see the biggest problem in the Cost Event. It's not really fair among combustion teams, but for electric teams it was even worse. The Sustainability Event at FS was a much better experience for me in every aspect. I hope for FSE 2011 that at least the AIR issue gets solved.

Concerning the power limit, I assume the measurements in the proposal come from our car. Despite a max power of 50 kW from the batteries, we achieved the 6th fastest sprint run. But, our drivetrain was limited at speeds &gt;60 km/h. In Italy, we had peak power of &gt;60 kW.
I would say you can compete with the combustion cars within a power limit of 60 kW, but it is clearly restricting your performance.

Regards,
Thomas </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Delft's electric car is designed at 55 kW, you just need to add some lightness. :P

Anyway, the design event does seem a bit frightening to me. In the combustion class alone it can already be difficult to judge the different powertrains (for example look at FSUK: for three years in a row design was won by a single cylinder with the entire top 4 being singles in 2010). Let alone if you add electric and hybrid cars to it.

I think it is so difficult for many judges because there are simply so many considerations when choosing your type of powertrain. Some are relatively easy to judge, like power, weight, cost (I mean real cost) and manufacturability. But what about criteria like availability of parts, possibilities to get components sponsored instead of having to pay for them, availability of knowledge about the components you are using, etc...? Things like these will have a big impact on your choice of powertrain but can they be fairly judged?

[Crispy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Thrainer:
I see the biggest problem in the Cost Event. It's not really fair among combustion teams, but for electric teams it was even worse.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about fuel efficiency? In Austria they combined the scoring and the electric cars destroyed the combustion cars. The most efficient combustion car had less than 50 points, and many four cylinders had negative points!

Seems like there are at least two philosophies that could be implemented in writing these type of rules.

1. Different concepts could have the same opportunity to score well in every discipline.
2. Some concepts could be less competitive in some areas and make up for it in others.

Either way, I think it's going to be very difficult to keep things even, but will also be very interesting.

[Bemo]

Merging classes seems quite problematic to me. This year at FS Austria the electric teams performed already very well - in their first year. If the rules don't change you will be forced to build an electric car to win the competition. Rules would have to be adjusted from year to year to keep every concept artificially competitive. This makes no sense to me.
An argument for the efficiency points at FS Austria can be that electric cars are more efficient so they get more points. But if you had to assume realistic prizes for the accumulators in cost this advantage would be propably gone.

I really liked the way the whole thing was handled at FSG 2010. I really think, that this is the way to go.
Another thing what really bothers me about the proposed rules changes for FS UK are the 150 points for efficiency. With such a high weighing of efficiency it isn't about to build a fast car anymore. In fact you get rewarded for driving slower in endurance.
The organisers of FS UK should think about what made FS/FSAE as popular as it is. It is simple. You get to design and build something awesome. Why have I done this for three years? Because I had an awesome time, because I had the opportunity to drive these awesome cars. I didn't think "Oh - I can learn very much there". I thought "AWESOME!"
If you want to build hyper efficient vehicles you can take part in Shell Eco Marathon or whatever.

Why didn't we ever consider to take part in class 1A at FS UK but took part at FSE?
Because the FSE rules encourage you to build a high performance car in terms of speed. Of course efficiency is still important there, but it is not the main aspect.

[TMichaels]

Keep posting guys, your opinions about this are really interesting!

What would you think, if FSG would limit the participation to one entry per university, so that each team has to decide whether to build an FSC or FSE car and not both?
As you probably know, each event is overbooked and it might seem unfair, if one university gains two slots in FSC and FSE while another university building only one car does not have a chance to compete.

Regards,

Tobias

[RenM]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TMichaels:
What would you think, if FSG would limit the participation to one entry per university, so that each team has to decide whether to build an FSC or FSE car and not both? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Obviously we wouldn´t like that http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
I think with the current registration process every team has the same chances to register and its up to the team to put enough effort into the registration.
And building two cars is a huge effort which isnt done easily. To penalize those teams wouldnt be fair in my opinion.

[RollingCamel]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What would you think, if FSG would limit the participation to one entry per university, so that each team has to decide whether to build an FSC or FSE car and not both?
As you probably know, each event is overbooked and it might seem unfair, if one university gains two slots in FSC and FSE while another university building only one car does not have a chance to compete. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't see how it gives a disadvantage to the team with one car. There is the quiz, compete at it. Then at the universities with FSE and FSC projects these are considered 2 different teams. They may share some place, equipment and ppl, some if the team members should have worked separately from the other project. If they bust themselves working for a long time it wouldn't be fair that they are denied entry because the university has another FSE or FSC team.

[DMuusers]

The quizzing method will also yield problems, because if you want to merge FSE and FSC you also have to merge the quizzes. Which means that if you build a combustion car you also have to know the ins and outs of the FSE rules, and vice versa. Which can be a good or a bad thing really; you know more about the competition but you'll have to learn rules that will never be to any of your concerns.

Also, if you decide not to merge the quizzes you could give either the combustion cars or electric cars an unfair advantage depending on how many teams want to enter. Let's say you have 40 slots for combustion and 40 for electric, the electric cars will have a natural advantage since there are far more combustion teams in the world than electric.

That said, I do still think that quizzing is the way to go. You're judged on your knowledge and not on how fast you can click register.

[murpia]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JasperC:
I think it is so difficult for many judges because there are simply so many considerations when choosing your type of powertrain. Some are relatively easy to judge, like power, weight, cost (I mean real cost) and manufacturability. But what about criteria like availability of parts, possibilities to get components sponsored instead of having to pay for them, availability of knowledge about the components you are using, etc...? Things like these will have a big impact on your choice of powertrain but can they be fairly judged? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think they can be fairly judged, because the judges are looking mainly at the justification for a choice, not whether the choice is right. The dynamic events are there for that. Also they are judging the teams knowledge.

If Design has been won by single cylinder cars, it's because the teams made a good justification case for a single (along with the rest of the car of course). Those teams would not have said 'a single won last year so that's what we chose'. Lower down the ranks, that's often what happens.

Regards, Ian

[RenM]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by murpia:
I think they can be fairly judged, because the judges are looking mainly at the justification for a choice, not whether the choice is right. The dynamic events are there for that. Also they are judging the teams knowledge.

If Design has been won by single cylinder cars, it's because the teams made a good justification case for a single (along with the rest of the car of course). Those teams would not have said 'a single won last year so that's what we chose'. Lower down the ranks, that's often what happens.

Regards, Ian </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Design should be that way, but more often than not it seems to be different. The only good design judging i had was at FSG. At other competitions the judging was a lot worse. The results have not been explained, the composition of the judges was extremly uneven (like no judges for suspension or chassis) or the fact that the UK Judges seem to put an extreme emphasis on light cars (which can, but does not necessarily make you faster)

[JasperC]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by murpia:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JasperC:
I think it is so difficult for many judges because there are simply so many considerations when choosing your type of powertrain. Some are relatively easy to judge, like power, weight, cost (I mean real cost) and manufacturability. But what about criteria like availability of parts, possibilities to get components sponsored instead of having to pay for them, availability of knowledge about the components you are using, etc...? Things like these will have a big impact on your choice of powertrain but can they be fairly judged? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think they can be fairly judged, because the judges are looking mainly at the justification for a choice, not whether the choice is right. The dynamic events are there for that. Also they are judging the teams knowledge.

If Design has been won by single cylinder cars, it's because the teams made a good justification case for a single (along with the rest of the car of course). Those teams would not have said 'a single won last year so that's what we chose'. Lower down the ranks, that's often what happens.

Regards, Ian </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aren't "justification of the choice" and "whether the choice is right" almost the same things? I mean, dynamic events are there to see if your car is quick (with a non-professional driver behind the wheel), but they don't say if it is cheap and easy to build and it hardly says anything about reliability (meaning one endurance isn't really statistically relevant for the reliability of a car).

So in my view, these are all aspects that have to be considered in the design event (or cost), along with how quick the car could be theoretically speaking. What you cannot judge are arguments like "we took this engine because we found a kind sponsor who gave us one", "we wanted other electric motors but the only company supplying them was 1500 kilometres away from home and in another country" etc. I mean, you could consider these arguments when judging the team, but you can't even verify if they are true.

This is where I see a problem when merging combustion and electric, because I believe it would be very difficult for many teams to get their hands on everything they need for an electric car. So to what extent would you expect them to be able to justify their choice for combustion from a purely engineering point of view, if they have to compete against electric cars?

(This question is not directed at you in particular, just something I wanted to add to this discussion.)

Kind regards,
Jasper Coosemans
DUT Racing Team 2008-2010
Delft University of Technology

[murpia]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JasperC:
Aren't "justification of the choice" and "whether the choice is right" almost the same things? I mean, dynamic events are there to see if your car is quick (with a non-professional driver behind the wheel), but they don't say if it is cheap and easy to build and it hardly says anything about reliability (meaning one endurance isn't really statistically relevant for the reliability of a car). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't think so. The 'right' choices are scored according to the dynamic and other static events (excluding presentation).

Bad choices can be well justified (available resources is a common one) and if the team's technical understanding is good can score well. Sometimes the best approach is to say 'we did X because of resources, we'd like to have done Y, if we had our analysis shows it's worth Z in points'...

That aspect of the team's approach to design judging is legitimate, often overlooked and needs additional emphasis (in my opinion).

Regards, Ian

[JasperC]

OK, that is a fair answer. Thank you! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Regards,
Jasper

[Jay Lawrence]

In response to Murpia: Pat Clarke once said to me "the car that won last year had a single, so why do you insist on running a 4?" ......

As far as judging the different categories goes, experience with judges so far tells me that they can't handle one category let alone more. We've had judges sit in our cars and say "this is perfect" and yet still do poorly. We've answered all their questions and then they've either misquoted us or misunderstood us in their reports, but have just assumed we don't know what we're talking about rather than asking us anything. This is my experience anyway, which makes me doubtful that they could fairly handle more than what they have now, especially without having actually built a FSAE car.

[PatClarke]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Pat Clarke once said to me "the car that won last year had a single, so why do you insist on running a 4?" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, my question was more along the lines "You have been beaten by RMIT over the last few years and they use a single, why do you guys persist with a four"?

Yes Jay, but if the car last year won with a four and you had a single, I would have asked "Why dont you run a four"? It's called 'Playing the devil's advocate' and it seems you may have missed the point of the question.
I was not remotely suggesting that a single was the better choice!
You were being asked to justify your choice, particularly as there seems to have been a somewhat misguided emphasis on engines at Wollongong over the last few years :-)

Cheers
Pat

[Charlie]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jay Lawrence:
In response to Murpia: Pat Clarke once said to me "the car that won last year had a single, so why do you insist on running a 4?" ......
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Questions formed like these can be damaging to a team's understanding of the design event if misunderstood. As Pat said he was just looking for justification of choice, not implying that any particular choice is right. It's usually not a design judge's task to voice their opinion to a team, but even when they do (not saying Pat did, but it happens), teams should be careful to realize that the next judge may not hold the same opinion, but any judge can be swayed by enough technical backup for design decisions (we are engineers after all)

[Jay Lawrence]

Haha thanks Pat... I got the point, but it was infuriating nonetheless. No doubt that was your intention http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Not sure how an engine package that can deliver any torque curve within reason whilst being reliable and economical (not to mention lighter than most other 4 cylinder cars (and many singles)) is misguided, but ok.

[flavorPacket]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jay Lawrence:
Not sure how an engine package that can deliver any torque curve within reason whilst being reliable and economical (not to mention lighter than most other 4 cylinder cars (and many singles)) is misguided, but ok. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's called Formula SAE, not Formula torque curve. You are placing excessive emphasis on a vehicle characteristic that is not as important to competition success as you think.

-former accel driver of very successful accel team

[TMichaels]

Come on guys,
let's get back to the advantages and disadvantages of merging combustion and electric classes. There are a lot of discussions about design and design judging in several other threads http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

My biggest concern is that we would have to sacrifice the night endurance of the electric cars, if we merge classes http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Regards,

Tobias

[Bemo]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TMichaels:
My biggest concern is that we would have to sacrifice the night endurance of the electric cars, if we merge classes http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
There you mention a problem which would come up. As far as I understood it, the reason for the night endurance was trouble with the schedule in the first place.
If you would merge classes, you would be forced let all cars do their endurance run on Sunday. It would be quite difficult to make sure that more than 100 cars could make their endurance before the evening. And as far as I know, there are noise restrictions at the Hockenheimring, which limit the time you can run combustion cars.
If it is one class, it wouldn't be fair to seperate the endurance run because of very different track conditions.
In the end I don't believe, that you would be able to allow this big number of cars you have this year at FSG anymore.

My answer to the question if entries should be limited to one per uni for both classes, so every uni would have to decide in which class they want to compete is quite clear - PLEASE DON'T DO THAT.
In our case (and I know at most other unis it is similar) there really are two teams with two shops, different sponsors etc.
It would be absolutely unfair to force the unis to close down one of the teams. But you still had some tricks you could use. There are quite a lot of unis at Stuttgart for art, music and stuff like that. So one team would just have to start for one of those http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[murpia]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TMichaels:
Come on guys,
let's get back to the advantages and disadvantages of merging combustion and electric classes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
One concern I have with merging combustion and electric is the differing safety rules.

I would advocate allowing drive-by-wire in the combustion class, but insisting on the same level of multiple safety cut-off protection as electric.

Also there is a case to be made for requiring the same level of protection to fuel cells and fuel lines as for batteries and high-voltage cables (to level the playing field).

Finally, equating energy usage during the 'economy' scoring needs careful consideration. How does FSGE align with FSUK Class 1A in this respect?

Regards, Ian

[Jay Lawrence]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by flavorPacket:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jay Lawrence:
Not sure how an engine package that can deliver any torque curve within reason whilst being reliable and economical (not to mention lighter than most other 4 cylinder cars (and many singles)) is misguided, but ok. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's called Formula SAE, not Formula torque curve. You are placing excessive emphasis on a vehicle characteristic that is not as important to competition success as you think.

-former accel driver of very successful accel team </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The fact that i used the words 'reliable', 'economical' and 'light' makes it extremely important to competition success.

From an Oz comp perspective, there were 2 electric cars last year and only one of them finished the events. My understanding is that the electric teams in Australia are getting increasing faculty support whilst the IC teams are getting much less. I have heard that Swinburne, for example, won't have an IC car from now on. Feel free to correct me but that is what i've heard. If that's the case then i see it not so much as merging classes but as pushing IC out of the way.

[Scott Wordley]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Pat Clarke once said to me "the car that won last year had a single, so why do you insist on running a 4?" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh no!

I guess we took Pat's suggestion too literally. Better sell those engines! Please see For Sale page.

http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[DMuusers]

I don't think safety or scrutineering is or will be a problem. Both teams go through the "standard" scrutineering and the electric cars then do the e-scrutineering and the rain test. This does mean though that the scrutineers should know both the rules for combustion cars and electric cars, but I don't think that will be a problem.

What I do think will be an issue is the scoring for the Efficiency/Fuel Economy and the Design Judging. In the Efficiency vs. Fuel Economy part it's going to be very tough to come up with a good balance, since we "know" that electric motors are far more efficient than combustion engines (debateable off course). So I suspect it comes down to choosing what you want; do you want the combustion cars to be competitive with the electric ones, or do you want an accurate score based on "normal life" situations.

Also with the design judging I can imagine that the objectivity of the design judges is questionable. It already is if you debate 4 cyl vs single cyl, but I think it's worse if you put combustion vs electric. And I can also imagine that since electric cars are based on much "newer" technology, the older (head) judges know far less of it. I think that most judges know this and that about combustion engines and know some things, but far less, about electric propulsion. So then if you look at the experts in powertrain they either know very much about combustion engines and little about electric motors and vice versa. Therefore it will be hard to compare design choices based on experience, which is what most judges do.

That said, I do find a merged class the way to go forward. It's not only interesting for the teams that compete, but also for the sponsors and interested people to see what happens if you put good ole combustion cars up against electric cars.

[RenM]

a difficult thing could prove the endurance starting order. If IC and electric cars are running at the same time, using the autox results as qualification might be a problem. We have seen that all electric cars carry to few energy with them to finish the endurance on full power. So they slow down considerably in endurance compared to autox. And i dont think that this will change in the near future.

[DMuusers]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RenM:
a difficult thing could prove the endurance starting order. If IC and electric cars are running at the same time, using the autox results as qualification might be a problem. We have seen that all electric cars carry to few energy with them to finish the endurance on full power. So they slow down considerably in endurance compared to autox. And i dont think that this will change in the near future. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't see the problem. A lot of teams that were competing in FSC last year were significantly slower in the endurance than in the autocross and other teams a hell of a lot faster. I also found most of the electric cars running at the same pace as they did. Some teams faster, some teams slower, but that's only natural. There's no way to avoid it even within FSC as it is now.

[Mbirt]

Until there is a wickedly fast electric vehicle that novice drivers/riders can go purchase, wreck, part out, and sell their powertrains to us for use in FSAE vehicles, small (budget) teams are going to have trouble with the costs. It's bad enough with singles since they're not total-able street vehicles. Two years after our switch to a single, we're having trouble explaining engine and parts expenditures to faculty.

Further rule changes to disadvantage the 600cc 4-cylinder and, in the future, combustion, will hurt involvement in this competition.

[Thrainer]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JasperC:
Delft's electric car is designed at 55 kW, you just need to add some lightness. :P </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Think about it, you guys are building a car that is 40-50 kg heavier than last year's... doesn't that make you feel depressed? http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
Seriously, I don't think you'll regret your decision. So many new challenges, so many new opportunities.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Crispy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Thrainer:
I see the biggest problem in the Cost Event. It's not really fair among combustion teams, but for electric teams it was even worse.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about fuel efficiency? In Austria they combined the scoring and the electric cars destroyed the combustion cars. The most efficient combustion car had less than 50 points, and many four cylinders had negative points!

... 2. Some concepts could be less competitive in some areas and make up for it in others </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What I wrote about the cost event is more like short-term problems (I hope) of the event itself, not related to combining classes.
When comparing classes, it's obvious that batteries are expensive... but if you think about how the combustion engine is costed... such rules simply don't exist yet for electric powertrains, but are desperately needed.

Thus, I choose your number 2. If you look at the Cost results from Austria, you'll see they almost make up for the electric cars' advantage in consumption. Keep in mind that FSA didn't have an efficiency event like FSG, the efficiency formula should help the fast combustion cars a bit.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bemo:
This year at FS Austria the electric teams performed already very well - in their first year. If the rules don't change you will be forced to build an electric car to win the competition.

... Another thing what really bothers me about the proposed rules changes for FS UK are the 150 points for efficiency. With such a high weighing of efficiency it isn't about to build a fast car anymore. In fact you get rewarded for driving slower in endurance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I see this differently. All of the electric teams at FSA have built FSAE cars before. I believe Eindhoven and Zurich would have achieved roughly the same standings at this event if we had built another combustion car.
Further, you suggest that last year's electric cars were far from their true potential. While I agree there can be some improvement in every aspect, I doubt this will have a big impact on overall event score (in my opinion smaller than e.g. testing time, drivers or luck).

With my experience from the four events I attended with an electric car last season, I'm pretty confident that under the current rules, the best teams have the chance to win the event (with the always required amount of racing luck, of course), independent of their powertrain.

Concerning your second point, I would claim that even with 100 points for efficiency, it's smart to drive a bit slower than you could during endurance. But I agree that 150 points for consumption (not even efficiency) is not helping the teams with 600 ccm engines.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by murpia:
I think they can be fairly judged, because the judges are looking mainly at the justification for a choice, not whether the choice is right. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's one point, but judging is also based on knowledge. You choose Design Judges with expertise in certain areas because it's advantageous if the judge knows more about the subject than the students. So I assume you'll have different judges for combustion and electric. But in a design final, the same judges should talk to all teams.
At FSA, I was impressed by one judge, the only one who asked truly unbiased questions about the powertrain. Asking e.g. "Tell me what are the three most important points concerning the powertrain to do well in skidpad? How did you take care of them? Why is your solution better than the other's?" gave each team the chance to show understanding of the problems and justify their designs. The rest of the powertrain judges were either asking specific electric questions or none at all (because we didn't have an engine).


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by murpia:
Also there is a case to be made for requiring the same level of protection to fuel cells and fuel lines as for batteries and high-voltage cables (to level the playing field).

... Finally, equating energy usage during the 'economy' scoring needs careful consideration. How does FSGE align with FSUK Class 1A in this respect? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ian, thanks for mentioning this. Further, I find it a bit strange that at FS, an electric car must be accompanied by a larger extinguisher than a combustion car carrying a lot more energy in the form of fuel.

At FSA, they were using the CO2 conversion factors mentioned in the Class 1A rules. I'd suggest it doesn't make much sense to change these numbers according to the means of energy production (e.g. more hydro and nuclear power in country Y changes the factor for electric energy), but this could be (or already is) the organizer's instrument to "level the playing field".


I'm really appreciating that we can have such an open discussion with participation of some officials.

Best regards,
Thomas

AMZ - ETH Zurich - 2008-2011

[RenM]

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

Ian, thanks for mentioning this. Further, I find it a bit strange that at FS, an electric car must be accompanied by a larger extinguisher than a combustion car carrying a lot more energy in the form of fuel.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its totally logical. If fuel is on fire it will stop when you hit the safety switches, because the fuel pump is deactivated and unless you destroy your fuel tank (which is really hard) no more fuel will come out.
But if batteries are on fire, its almost impossible to extinguish the fire. Even several CO2 Extinguishers wont do the job http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[blister]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> One concern I have with merging combustion and electric is the differing safety rules.

I would advocate allowing drive-by-wire in the combustion class, but insisting on the same level of multiple safety cut-off protection as electric.

Also there is a case to be made for requiring the same level of protection to fuel cells and fuel lines as for batteries and high-voltage cables (to level the playing field). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have the opinion that the "drivetrain safety" puts a big workload on each Class 1A/FSE Team, while for Combustion Cars there are only some general rules (safety improved the last years, good thing). I would also like to have some general rules for electric drivetrains. At the moment there are so many things to do for the FSE Safety that smaller teams can`t really emphasize on "clever" solutions but have to invest many of their ressources into complying with the rules.

Don`t get me wrong, I`m an advocate for safety in our team, but it is far far more important to have a working safety regime (Equipment, Organisation, Quality Control) than to have many parts of the electrical drivetrain mandated by the rules.

I think the 1A/FSE rules should not getting more restrictive and that some changes (HVD in Germany...and logger box in 1A) are already in the wrong direction.

Nevertheless thanks to the strict E-Scrutineering I learned much about electrical safety in Racing/Automotive and I think that both competitions did a very good job last year safety-wise!

On performance of electric cars: I think they will be able to win all dynamic events but Endurance, like a combustion car is able to win them. For the Endurance, the payoff of running not at full power and getting more efficiency points is much bigger for electric cars. I expect the 2011 electric cars to be around 1.5 seconds slower a lap in Endurance (in Austria we were 3s per lap behind the best Combustion car). For 2011 I think you need already to be below 200 kg to be competitive at FSE; it is a very tight course and there are two teams with "ultralight cars past" (Delft and GFR). I really really hope that we see a showdown between an ultralight electric car and an ultrapower electric car next year.

[Big Bird]

Thanks Murpia for giving us this opportunity. I note the pdf says feedback was required by Dec 2010 - so I'm hoping I haven't missed the boat completely.

My point of view:
1. I am a big fan of the FSAE / FStudent combustion comp
2. I am a big fan of any initiative to introduce alternative / future technologies
3. I am strongly opposed to any merging of the two.

I see combination of the different competitions as a bit of a Frankenstein's monster - a sort of "all things to all people" competition which is just going to end up confused and hard to decipher.

I would consider FSAE combustion as a design competition. It is a competition of known technologies and known resources, where students are encouraged to tackle known automotive problems and learn how to address such problems within the constraints of given time / money / human resources budgets. The problem can be defined and analyzed using known and reputable textbooks and methodologies, and the structure of the comp rewards rational enquiry. There is plenty of opportunity for creativity, and at the end of the day, results can be analyzed & compared to other teams, feedback cogitated upon, and some sort of future direction can be garnered from the various successes and failures. It is a brilliant educational tool to learn engineering design and project management, and can be tackled successfully from any number of budget entry points. I'll add that given recent finishing rates, (down to 30% in Oz), the competing students still haven't "mastered" FSAE as it is.

Formula Electric / hydrogen / biodiesel is a brilliant initiative, but it is research. This requires a whole different skill set and budgetary input to do it properly. Primarily, research involves holding the world still while we change one thing, measure it, and cogitate / report on the results. Unis are good at this research thing, but having been involved in these combined research / vehicle design projects in recent years, my opinion is that it can be an ugly mix.

Vehicle wise, FSAE is primarily a handling competition. It rewards innovation in chassis and suspension design, and a solid vehicle handling testing program.

Formula Alternative needs to be kept as a powertrain competition. The teams undertaking powertrain research need to keep all their wits about them getting their heads around new and dangerous technologies, and the required safety standards and procedures to implement them. Why a team that is venturing into say, supercapacitors or hydrogen needs to also design a unique and innovative chassis just to compete is beyond me and I think a recipe for big trouble.

I've recently been involved in a project where we built a hydrogen car, with directives to build a whole, unique chassis as well. With a team around FSAE size we were juggling chassis and suspension design, and bodywork manufacture, and hydrogen supply system design, and hydrogen ICE tuning, and electrical troubleshooting, and hydrogen workshop and handling safety issues, and legal requirements, and finding test venues that would allow unknown fuels, and redesigning dyno cells for the new fuel, etc etc etc etc. By the end of the project we had utterly exhausted ourselves, learnt very little about hydrogen due to all the other project distractions, presented a half-baked final product, and vowed and declared to never embark on such a multi-directional and confused project ever again. And to be honest, I still thank my lucky stars that in all that mayhem and delerium we didn't manage to blow ourselves into the stratosphere.

If we want alternative powertrains, ease the load a little by allowing the team to use existing chassis' developed by the smokey teams.

Should I mention the extra pressures teams will be under when uni marketing and management get a whiff of this. Lots more pressure for results, especially given the extra budget required.

With all due respect to those doing a great job in designing and delivering these competitions, by all means continue to encourage alternative technologies. But I strongly believe that blending / immersing such aspirations into the existing FSAE combustion comp will lead to a confused mess at best, and serious safety consequences at worst.

My apologies if the above is a little too direct.

Cheers,

[Mbirt]

Geoff, you are a breath of fresh air. Thank you for stating what the rest of us want to say, but in a clear, logical manner. We need more people like you in charge.

Formula Zero is the hot thing among the ME faculty powers here at KU right now. The students involved with the hydrogen go-kart have learned little to nothing about vehicle dynamics, chassis and suspension development, load paths, manufacturing, and so on. They purchased a stretched go-kart chassis from Margay. Their budget is astronomical to the point that even their powertrain is comprised of off-the-shelf parts. Programming of controllers and data acquisition may be the only tangible skills they acquire from the project.

What I gather from this is that, even in a powertrain research competition, little may be learned by the students themselves due to the huge amount of money available through politics. All it takes is one faculty member who really knows how to sink his fangs into the taxpayers' coffers to finish his school's alternative energy research competition project for the students.

[PatClarke]

This is my take on the situation.

FS/FSAE was never intended to ‘save the world’ laudable though that may be. FS was initiated by the SAE in response to industries complaints that engineering graduates were theory rich and practical poor. FSAE and then FS was conceived as a scheme where students could generate practical skills whilst learning appropriate skills. Remember, the founders were the Society of Automotive Engineers… Automotive engineers!

As the competition has become more competitive and sophisticated, I see a trend developing where the car has become more important than the engineering exercise. Many people have actually come to believe this is a motorsport competition, and I think therein lies the issue.
Motorsport most certainly needs to justify its existence. What is seen by many as the profligate waste of resources needs to defend its existence. It needs to do this by becoming relevant to living in the 21st century. But that is motorsport!

FS/FSAE on the other hand, is an educational exercise and as such already justifies its existence. The developing sophistication (and therefore, cost) of competing successfully has already dissuaded many universities from competing. I have repeatedly been told ‘If that’s the game, we don’t want to play’!

Driving the competition to a higher plane of sophistication in an ill advised notion to use it to ‘save the world’ is only going to further damage the competition as it will become the exclusive domain of the wealthy colleges.
We seem to have forgotten our roots! This is shown, not just in this debate, but in the increasing complexity of the rules, some totally unnecessary! What’s the old saying ?... ‘All we wanted to do was drain the swamp’

Another great concern to me is the potential for a schism when a major competition like FS change the structure of their competition. Will this mean that teams will not be able to cross enter into or from the UK competition with the same car? If so, that removes one of the great learning opportunities as students are exposed to different and possibly better ways to address the task put to them by the competition organisers.

It is not as if FS has reached a plateau of excellence where there is nowhere else to go. Remember, a UK team has never won their own competition, something that bemuses me, given the access UK students have to racecar technology.

In closing, sure ‘save the earth’. In fact, put a premium on finding solutions, but not is FS, FSAE. There needs to be another forum for that, and the students who have learned all the practical skills in FS/FSAE will then be better prepared to address these bigger and more important issues.

My two cents worth!


Pat

[murpia]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Big Bird:
Thanks Murpia for giving us this opportunity. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I just asked the question, the thanks should go to those taking the time to write their views...

Personally I find too many compromises involved in merging FSUK Class 1 and Class 1A, the regulations would likely be full of loopholes and unfair comparisons.

I do much prefer the concept of Class 1A compared to FSGE, or Formula Hybrid, which both dictate a particular alternative technology as opposed to allowing the freedom to chose the best solution for the problem. Formula Hybrid predates Class 1A, which predates FSGE. FSUK Class 1A was designed to allow Formula Hybrid cars to enter, however I get the impression from some of the above posts that FSGE and FSUK Class 1A are not well aligned and that an electric car built to one set of rules is uncompetitive (or illegal) in the other.

Could someone comment on this please?

Pat, it disappoints me that no UK team has organised themselves well enough to win FSUK. Excuses are often made regarding resources, or University policies, or other external factors. Generally these are excuses made by poor leadership, hopefully one year soon we will see the right leader emerge (not necessarily an engineer).

Regards, Ian

[blister]

In general i am also opposed to merge the classes into one. But this is just because i think with the increased efficiency points amount (100) it will be completely impossible to win the competition with a 4 Cylinder car.

But with some points of you, BigBird and Pat, I don`t agree:

1. FSE/1A is not research. Research would mean to develop new battery chemistry, new types of motors (ironless etc.). Yes, there are teams developing their own motors, yes there are teams developing their own gearbox. But it is NOT research. It is pure Engineering, using the laws of nature to suit mankind.

2. FSE/1A puts emphasis on vehicle dynamics just like FSAE. Think about the packaging of your powetrain. Accumulators, motors, peripherals. I don`t say you can`t have a good package for our competition with a ICE car (sidewinder cars come to my mind). But with Electric Cars you can reduce you MOIs, your wheelbase, CoG. You can free up space for the rear suspension. Additionally there are this funky torque controls, single wheel traction control, Recuperation.

3. Only wealthy teams can compete on a high level in FSE/1A. Partly true, but take a look at the garage equipment or the trailer parks in Germany. Some teams just don`t know how to spend their money. I know or better hope, that in the States there are many teams that can`t afford a stylish garage. But it is the general problem, that also the ICE teams have such different amounts of money to spend. I estimate the costs of a cheap FSE powertrain to be around 15000 USD. I don`t know about the average budget of all teams, maybe i am totally wrong. But it should be possible to raise this 15000 USD with some good promotional work for any serious team.

4. FSE "wants to save the world". When i get up on a test day with our electric car I don`t want to save the world, I want to burn rubber and eat BBQ for lunch and dinner. It can be a part of your promotional work to claim to "save the world". There are teams doing that, but I don`t like it, because it is not true.

But in the end I have also the impression, that FSE and FSAE don`t have the same intention. And that is why i think merging the classes is not a good idea.

[PatClarke]

Quote Ian Murphy.
"Pat, it disappoints me that no UK team has organised themselves well enough to win FSUK. Excuses are often made regarding resources, or University policies, or other external factors. Generally these are excuses made by poor leadership, hopefully one year soon we will see the right leader emerge (not necessarily an engineer)"

Ian, you are absolutely right! I have had the pleasure of having watched three Australian teams win events all over the world. This despite the Aussie competition not starting until 2000. It took 3 years for the Aussie Teams to start winning internationally (Pontiac 2003) and since then we have seen multiple wins by RMIT and UWA. These teams all had a different solution to the design task set for them, UoW with a spaceframe 600, UWA with carbon 600 on trick suspension and RMIT with their carbon singles.

Question: What did these teams all have in common?

Answer: All had exemplary team leaders!
(and that includes Big Bird, who has posted eloquently at the top of this page .. Don't blush Geoff http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

And they were not necessarily engineers!

Cheers

Pat

PS Blister,
Please dont misunderstand (or misquote) me. I never claimed FSE was trying to save the world. I said the intent of FSAE/FS/FSE was not to save the world, but to finish the education of many of those young engineers who can/will go on to save the world. There is a big difference.

Personally, I don't care what the formula is, even if electric motors were mandated. The task you are set is to design and build a prototype racer for the weekend warrior. That task alone is so difficult that only very few universities globally each year manage to do a good job of it! Further complicating that primary task is counter productive in the big picture.

Cheers

Pat

[Bemo]

Again some thoughts from my side.

I don't think the difference of organising a combustion or an electric team is as big as BigBird thinks. Again you have to set up a team structure. The work for chassis and suspension guys won't change a lot except the possibilities for vehicle dynamics are greater (as blister already explained).

The most important thing is what Pat explained. The whole thing is about learning. And how do you get students to learn something in their free time without any rewards for their studies? Give them a task they fall in love to, say build an awesome race car. That's what FS/FSAE does and that's the reason for their success. My fear is that the organisers of FSUK miss that point.

But I am strongly against merging classes as this would mean that there would be a constant argument about the leveling of efficiency and cost points to make both concepts competitive.

What is the big deal about having two competitions like it is now at Hockenheim. Last year it was an awesome event. No discussions if the efficiency rules prefer one concept or not and still you could see the cars running at the same time and get your picture of the performances.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PatClarke:
FS/FSAE on the other hand, is an educational exercise and as such already justifies its existence. The developing sophistication (and therefore, cost) of competing successfully has already dissuaded many universities from competing. I have repeatedly been told ‘If that’s the game, we don’t want to play’!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps these unis should visit the succesful teams. Then they would recognize that a lot of what they heard about recources of other teams isn't true.

[Big Bird]

Thanks gents for the constructive discussion. In retrospect I might have been a little off the mark with the research comment, as it doesn't necessarily need to be research to build an electric / alt fuel car. But I was trying to make a distinction between the reasonably well known and defined design task that is FSAE, and a much more unconstrained and uncontrolled venture that is developing an alternative powertrain.

Aside from "normal" FSAE involvement, I've now overseen two electric FSAE projects and the abovementioned H2 car project. So I'm under no illusions as to the amount of work required to get an alternative powertrain working properly (and by properly I'm not just talking about getting the car running, I'm also considering the following of proper safety procedures, making car and workshop safe, etc). In each of the alt powertrain projects I've observed, the team would have been (or was) better off if they could focus on the major task at hand (understanding the new technology), and not using up scarce resources to build a rolling chassis from the ground up at the same time.

This observation is in response to the rule that the sparky / steamy / swamp gas teams must work independantly of the uni's smokey team. Why not let the uni's teams collaborate and share resources / manpower? Why make the task unnecessarily onerous and expensive? Sure, if well funded unis want seperate chassis and projects, then let them. But don't make it compulsory.

And any formula that mandated minimum $15,000 drivetrains to be successful would lose a lot of supporters in this part of the world. Do we really need that sort of buy-in for an educational event?

As for combining the classes, I can't help feeling the overall result would be contrived and confused. It would be a bit like comparing an apple to a cooked chicken to a dishcloth and declaring which was the best grocery.

As for the Ian's lament about British teams - I'd go as far as to say that being surrounded by high level motorsport has hindered them more than helped. At the Goodwood FS display in '04 I remember being positively ridiculed by members of one well known UK team (to the point that they turned their backs to me mid-sentence and started chatting amongst themselves) because we had travelled around the globe to compete with them with such a woefully underspec car. There was this unhealthy spec-sheet bragging rights thing happening between the teams on the display stand, and a blind faith that because they "knew" motorsport they would just blow everyone else away. I won't tar all with the same brush, but there were some rather interesting attitudes on show.

Anyway, too many ideas all in one post. I've confused myself and it is time to go to bed. My thoughts to our friends in northern Queensland tonight, stay safe.

[Bemo]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Big Bird:
This observation is in response to the rule that the sparky / steamy / swamp gas teams must work independantly of the uni's smokey team. Why not let the uni's teams collaborate and share resources / manpower? Why make the task unnecessarily onerous and expensive? Sure, if well funded unis want seperate chassis and projects, then let them. But don't make it compulsory.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
At FSG it is only compulsory two define two seperate teams at comp. If you're working as one team, as two completely independant teams or something in between is up to you.
It is allowed to build the same chassis for the combustion and the electric car or to copy an old chassis for an electric car as long as it complies to the acutal chassis rules.
Like this it is possible to share a lot of resources and to reuse a design.
But at comp one person can only be a member for one of the teams and therefor is only allowed to work on one of the cars and to speak for one of the teams during the static events.
I think this is quite a good solution for the moment to make it easier to set up new electric teams as everyone will have quite a lot to do to get an electric powertrain running.

It will be the question if this rule will stay in charge for the future. But this will propably be the only possible way to have an electric and a combustion project at one uni at the same time (what is quite desirable in my opinion).
At a big uni like here at Stuttgart there are quite a lot of students interested in combustion engines and there are a lot of students who are studing in the field of electric powertrains.
The fact that we are having Rennteam and GreenTeam parallel here gives both groups the opportunity to partcipate in FS.

[Xeilos]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bemo:
At a big uni like here at Stuttgart there are quite a lot of students interested in combustion engines and there are a lot of students who are studing in the field of electric powertrains.
The fact that we are having Rennteam and GreenTeam parallel here gives both groups the opportunity to partcipate in FS. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If each university were to be forced into either submitting a combustion car or a electric car then I can foresee two outcomes: one that eventually one of the competitions (Electric of ICE) will be rendered obsolete or that the FSUK competition itself will become somewhat obsolete or at least unpopular. This is completely ignoring and not attempting to address the large technical challenges of making a 'fair' competition.

Rennteam and GreenTeam are a perfect example of students within one University with two unique groups of values/interests with a parallel focus of motorsport (my apologizes to Stuttgart for making an example of your university in this post, but you best exemplify the duality of having two Formula teams).

Looking forward (trending) and supposing that the ICE and Electric competitions merged worldwide and that this rule of one team was also applied worldwide, the students within these universities would be forced to choose just one team. Which would win? Would it be the longest lasting team or would it be team who is focusing on the emerging technology. Based upon the current trend today in the automotive industry, eventually the focus will shift to Electric based and the students in universities like Stuttgart will most likely follow that trend. In effect the combustion competition would be phased out to follow industry.

I am not arguing that this should not happen for the sake of ICE FSAE cars; I foresee it eventually happening given enough time, oil resources and societal pressures. But with all of the research still ongoing in ICE technology (HCCI, Bio-Fuels, turbocharging, etc) it (IMO) would be pre-emptive to start the trend which begins phasing out combustion technology from FSAE.

DISCLAIMER: I feel it is at this point that I should state that I am currently leading a FSAE team which is combustion engine based and has no immediate intention of fielding an alternative fuels, hybrid or fully electric engine in the foreseeable future.

The other outcome at least initially that I can foresee happening for the FSUK competition (which our team still attends albeit only once in a while) is that with the forced one car per university rule the teams will no longer have an incentive to show up to the FSUK competition. If the other competitions in the world (though FSAE-Michigan is unusually slow in adopting alternative fuel technology into their competition) still allow two teams in different 'classes' from the same University, then these competition will get the preference from the these universities. Why would they show up to a competition where only one of their teams can participate where all the other competitions (at the moment namely Hockenheim) allow the two classes in separate competitions? This point is weaker than the first one, but I believe it still has some amount of validity.

In the end I have to state that I would not support the merger of these two classes together.

[thewoundedsoldier]

Apparently, the opinions posted here are a reflection of the socio-economic / political views of those posting. Libertarian vs. conservative vs. liberal. Old-fashioned vs. new-age. Innovative technology vs. established power. Etc, etc.

I think most people stand up to defend the current paradigm of motorsport because they have been raised to hear a revving engine and associate that sound with something fast. I think it comes down to such simple pleasures as wanting to smell the exhaust. Maybe we just need to "dirty up" the electrics--find a way to let people get their hands all greasy when they wrench on a motor controller or something.

"New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common."
- John Locke

[RenM]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thewoundedsoldier:
Maybe we just need to "dirty up" the electrics--find a way to let people get their hands all greasy when they wrench on a motor controller or something. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hehe Simple fact is: I like thermodynamics and fluid mechanics , you cant make an electric car dirty enough, that i would like to work on one http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif (i still did though haha http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

[Thrainer]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thewoundedsoldier:
... Maybe we just need to "dirty up" the electrics--find a way to let people get their hands all greasy when they wrench on a motor controller or something. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can assure you just getting access to our motor controllers was a big mess last year http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif But it didn't really add positively to the motorsport feeling. After a couple of test days, it's totally normal to not have the typical engine noise.


I have a question for all those "conservatives" here: Didn't FSAE already allow alternative drivetrains by the possibility to run E85 fuel? How many teams have really mastered the complexity of the change to take full advantage of the different fuel? Are E85 engines really "known technology" with lots of widely available knowledge?
I would claim allowing E85 was just the first step into "research" and alternative powertrains. So, the purist mind should oppose E85 like the rest of the alternative solutions.

Regards,
Thomas

[PatClarke]

Quote
"Apparently, the opinions posted here are a reflection of the socio-economic / political views of those posting. Libertarian vs. conservative vs. liberal. Old-fashioned vs. new-age. Innovative technology vs. established power. Etc, etc.

I think most people stand up to defend the current paradigm of motorsport because they have been raised to hear a revving engine and associate that sound with something fast. I think it comes down to such simple pleasures as wanting to smell the exhaust. Maybe we just need to "dirty up" the electrics--find a way to let people get their hands all greasy when they wrench on a motor controller or something."

What a load of twaddle! Go back and read the posts again!

Pat

[Big Bird]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I have a question for all those "conservatives" here </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can I ask who you are addressing this to?

[thewoundedsoldier]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What a load of twaddle! Go back and read the posts again! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

haha that's not nice!

I'm not sure which of my sentences you find a 'load of twaddle', but I think they stand by themselves. It wasn't an attack on anybody--just two observations. I think that people either want to be a part of sweeping change, or want to keep the status quo because it is 'comfortable'. As for the engine thing, it's just been my experience that most people still find engines to be superior to electric motors--sometimes for reasons that do not include performance!

Again, I don't really have an opinion on the changes. I just find the psychology factor interesting--what pushes certain types of people towards certain opinions.

Geoff, I think he is addressing the people who do not want to mix powertrains in the same event. A "conservative" being one 'disposed to preserve existing conditions'.

Sorry for causing such a ruckus!!

[BrendonD]

I don't have a dog in this fight since these changes don't affect our program or competitions (yet), but I've got some thoughts as a current undergrad project manager.

I've always been under the impression that FSAE/FS were learning tools first and foremost and that's how I've "sold" the project to administrators and sponsors over the years. Sadly, FSAE will never get to play the "green" card. As a project manager at a progressive university I had my struggles with that at first, but when having to create an "elevator pitch" I kept coming back to the fact that this is one of the best (if not THE best) methods of learning real systems engineering at an undergraduate level. I have young kids on my team that can run circles around juniors and seniors of the non-FSAE variety. We are all extremely proud of the work we do, and I am extremely proud of my teammates.

While we should be aware of changes in technology and how they affect vehicle engineering, Formula SAE and Formula Student were never meant to be testbeds for radically new powertrains and technologies. Geoff hit the nail on the head when he spoke about using well known tools and resources to get the job done. The reason these events have gotten competitive is because some programs (I refrain from using the word 'teams' here) have evolved to the point where they can use and pass along the knowledge and skills they have acquired very effectively year after year. Those programs by design produce outstanding graduates.

We are engineers after all, we're conditioned to like things that are cheap and effective, and from a cost vs "quality of graduate" analysis it's far and away the frontrunner among collegiate competitions. We're also kidding ourselves saying we're not motivated by the visceral embodiment of a hardcore racing vehicle. I helped to start my Formula SAE team because I wanted to do something like this and I had no desire to join Solar Car. I can't say I would have been as excited about Formula Hybrid and I don't feel bad about that, nor should I be made to.

FSAE/FS teaches the ability to come to rational (or unconventional) solutions, make compromises on a team and on the car, manage a project, use limited resources effectively, and take ownership of a problem. These are all extremely valuable skills in a workplace and in my opinion, an alteration to the competition series that has the potential to detract from any of these is not a good one.

Best,
BrendonD

Last mildy unrelated note: Comparing an E85 fuel selection to some of the other powertrains being discussed here is not a good argument. That is in no way near the scope of an all electric or hybrid powertrain.

[Bemo]

I wouldn't call my point of view in this topic 'conservative'. I don't say that I prefer electric or IC cars. The only thing I don't like is to compare completely different cars within one competitions by giving them an artificial environment to give them equal chances.
By the way you give points for efficiency and cost you can influence a lot of the chances of each concept. And people will always argue if the reason that a car with one or the other concept won because they did the best job or because they chose the way to go which is prefered by the rules.
And as others already stated. Merging classes can easily lead to extinguish one of the classes which would definitely a bad thing no matter if the electric or if the IC cars survive.

[TMichaels]

Please note: This is my personal opinion, not an official statement of FSG/FSE.

In my opinion this kind of discussion will never lead to satisfying result. It is so heavily influenced by personal opinions, thinking and experiences...impartial arguments do not really work. Therefore I will not try to be impartial in this post http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
(I am not talking about merging classes, I am talking about the whole E vs. IC bashing happening in this thread).

Some posts talk about the lack of experience which can be handed over, when building an electric car. Yes, this is totally true. Just wait 3 to 5 years and the teams will be up to the pace and don't struggle with the special requirements of a full electric vehicle anymore.

Some posts talk about electric drivetrains being to far away from being well understood or are under current research...sorry,but this is not the case. Electric motors are well understood, motor controllers are well understood, batteries are well understood (not saying that they are competitive in terms of energy density compared to fuel). Just compare a state of the art engine from the 80s with current direct injection engines. There may still be a long way to go, however the task for a team remains the same: Find the best compromises, organize your team, acquire sponsors, reach your deadlines, manage your project.

Then there is the word "alternative"...would you call diesel engines alternative? I would not, but some competitions do. Alternative is always the term assigned to the technology which is not currently common. Alternative may be assigned to gasoline burning engines in 50 years. We don't know yet, but time will tell.

Being engineers we should always be open-minded towards innovation, instead of declining new ideas or technologies.

I understand that there may be a kind of fear of loosing the good old competition, but the competition is changing every year and whoever you ask: They always tell you that the past was better: The students were smarter, the designs better, the cars faster. Do you really believe in this?

I would be interested, if there was a similar discussion in the community for example between running carburators or EFI back in the days...I suppose yes.

Have fun in dividing and conquering my post.

Regards,

Tobias

[murpia]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by murpia:
I do much prefer the concept of Class 1A compared to FSGE, or Formula Hybrid, which both dictate a particular alternative technology as opposed to allowing the freedom to chose the best solution for the problem. Formula Hybrid predates Class 1A, which predates FSGE. FSUK Class 1A was designed to allow Formula Hybrid cars to enter, however I get the impression from some of the above posts that FSGE and FSUK Class 1A are not well aligned and that an electric car built to one set of rules is uncompetitive (or illegal) in the other.

Could someone comment on this please? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Tobias,

To get things back on topic, would you care to comment on the above?

Regards, Ian

[Bemo]

It is possible to build a car which is rules compliant and competitive at both competitions as für example Zürich showed last year.

But there are differences in the rules which can mean compromises dependant on your concept. The max. voltage for example is limited to 400V at FSUk and to 600V at FSE. This means that if you want to compete at both events you can't choose to have the max. voltage at FSE (which is a clear disadvantage in efficiency) or you have to build to different sets of accumulators, which is expensive and a big additional workload.
Also the points you get for efficiency for example are very different, so might come to the conclusion that the best compromise is different for the both comps.

For us these were the reasons not to take part at FSUK last year because we weren't willing to make any compromises to make the car legal for FSUK.

[W1N3I]

Is there some sort of agreement between FSE and FSUK Class 1A in terms of Event setup or Rules? Or is something like that planned in the near future?

[TMichaels]

I will try to shed some light on why we have done things this way.

Why do we only allow electric vehicles?

1) Safety:
We think that it is not possible to guarantee a safe event, if you allow too much different technologies since you need specialized scrutineers for every single of these technologies. For example a scrutineer being able to check that an electric car is safe will not be able to say, if a high-pressure hydrogen system is safe. You also need extra-equipment for each different technology during scrutineering.
Furthermore you need to teach your track marshals how to deal with all these different kind of systems, if they catch fire for example. This can be very different, depending on the used powertrain technology and a lot of mistakes can be made making the situation even worse after a car catched fire. Finding specialized firefighters being able to handle accumulators correctly was hard enough, everything else could be a nightmare from an organizers point of view. One could argue that we are overpacing with respect to safety, but in my opinion this is not really possible, since the reputation of the whole series will take damage, if someone is hurt seriously during an official competition. Don't get me wrong, I do not want anyone to get hurt, may it be during an official competition or just testing. But if you are part of the organizational committee you have the responsibility for the safety on site and to do whatever you can to avoid accidents.

2) Complexity / Competitiveness:
We wanted the new class to be as competitive as the IC cars without sacrificing safety. We did not mainly want it to be green or alternative. These are nice buzz words, but heavily arguable. FSAE/FS/FSC is so successful, because fast race cars attract students. The chance of driving your own handmade race car with driving characteristics which you will probably enjoy never again after having left the team motivates students, besides learning for their future life.
Before starting to design the rules for FSE we had a look at the results and achieved dynamic performances of the Formula Hybrid and Class 1A competition. We saw that teams seem to struggle with the complexity of hybrids and with having too many choices both affecting competitiveness in a negative way. Therefore we made a decision, which does not necessary say electric is the way to go, to be competitive, but it looks like. In 2010 pure electric cars dominated Class 1A (leaving out endurance), in 2009 Class1A was won by a full electric car. This year we will see, how the other technologies develop, but I like to forecast that an electric car will win again.

3) Engineering Design:
It will be very difficult, if not impossible, to have a fair design event. You need a lot of special judges for the very different technologies and they have to be able to talk to each other and find out who did better. This is really hard, if for example team A runs a turbocharged diesel, team B runs a high-pressure hydrogen system and team C runs an electric vehicle. This also affects the whole package and vice-versa. I cannot think of a way to deal with this in a manner which guarantees a fair points distribution.

Regards,

Tobias

[TMichaels]

Regarding the alignment of the rules:
I wrote our reasons for only allowing electric cars. The same reasons hold, more or less, for the details in which the rules differ.

The main difference:
Allowed maximum voltage level (600V at FSE):
We thought about teams wanting to adapt industrial motors for keeping costs low. 380/400V three-phase AC is the standard, leading to a needed peak voltage of 537V. If you want to be able to use peak power with a drained accumulator at the end of endurance, you need to start with fully accumulators close below 600V.
Furthermore a lot of measurement equipment etc. is rated to 600VDC while still being cheap. We also did investigations regarding safety with respect to the voltage level. There is no mentionable risk of death up to 1000VDC (according to Biegelmeier,2007). I can provide links to papers, if anyone is interested.

I do not know what the reason for the 400V maximum at FS UK is, therefore I cannot comment on it. The same holds for the 300V maximum at Formula Hybrid. Maybe someone of the organization of FSUK or Formula Hybrid can light things up.

We communicated a lot with the other events regarding an alignment of the rules to allow teams to enter several events with their car.

Formula Electric & Hybrid Italy accepts cars built to Class1A and FSE rules, but with different scoring for hybrids and pure electric vehicles.
Formula Student Austria accepts cars built to FSE rules.
Formula Student Spain accepts cars built to FSE rules.
FSAE Australasia accepts cars built to FSE rules.

We were not able to find a solution up to now with FSUK. But both competitions are still working together to solve this.
As Bemo mentioned, Zuerich (1st at FSUK1A and 5th at FSE), Graz (6th at FSUK1A and 3rd at FSE) and Eindhoven (3rd at FSUK1A and 2nd at FSE) have shown last year that it is possible to build a car for both competitions which is competitive.

Regards,

Tobias

[bob.paasch]

Tobias:

Have you had any discussions with SAE and the Formula Hybrid organizers about allowing E-cars to compete here in the US?

[TMichaels]

As far as I know there are currently no plans, but maybe Michael Royce can comment on this more competent. I don't remember a detailed discussion regarding pure electric vehicles in the US competitions. However, there is a possibility to enter a pure electric car as hybrid-in-progress in Formula Hybrid.

Regards,

Tobias

[thewoundedsoldier]

Formula Hybrid just changed the rule this year, allowing a Hybrid-in-Progress to be entered in the team's second year of competition. Until this year, only first-year teams have been allowed to enter an all-electric vehicle. I suspect that this rule change has more to do with the competition trying to get more cars on track than it does with moving to electric-only drivetrains. Also, several teams suffer failures of the combustion system and in this case are allowed to revert to Hybrid-in-Progress, regardless of the age of the team.

FH rule 3.5.1.2.

[Friedl]

Hi Tobias!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We were not able to find a solution up to now with FSUK. But both competitions are still working together to solve this.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really hope that you at least fix the energy meter problem. Designing for two totally different metering solutions, especially with the odd rules that the FSUK meter wants to measure the throttle position and wants to be able to shut down the care is really hideous.

For all other rules a superset can be worked out, which works for us.

Just my two euro cents.
Friedl

[TMichaels]

Hi Friedl,
I think the problem is that we and FSUK Class 1A have different intentions regarding the Energy Meter.

We offered all events which allow electric vehicles to compete to use the FSE Energy Meter Version2 this year free of charge. Formula Student Austria and Formula Student Spain accepted this offer, Formula Student Uk and Formula Electric and Hybrid Italy decided to stick to their solutions.

Regards,

Tobias

[Thrainer]

Hi,

please don't confuse "Formula Electric and Hybrid Italy" (FEHI) with "Formula Student Italy". Formula SAE Italy does not allow electric vehicles. Last year, the FEHI solution of Energy Meter included losing all data if you shut off the car before the data is copied.

I'm glad that FSA and FSS accepted the offer. But I can also understand that FS didn't want to give this out of their hands for an unproven solution (I'm not saying their own solution will be better).

Regards

[TMichaels]

Hi Thomas,
you are right of course. I used the wrong name for the italian competition.

Regarding the FEHI solution from last year: What happened during the driver change? Did you not shut-down the car? (Otherwise the data would have been lost, right?)
How about shutting down the car accidently on the track? Was all data lost then?

Regards,

Tobias

[Bemo]

It was possible to shut down the HV system. But as soon as the LV system was shut down all data of their energy meter was lost.
So during driver change the LV system had to stay active and after finishing endurance we had to wait until they had read out the data from the energy meter.
Besides that their solution worked without problems.

[TMichaels]

Thanks for the information. We also got rid of the accumulator solution (was not the best idea ever) this year and supply the EnergyMeter from the LV system.

Regards,

Tobias