Dunk is correct.
The rule does not prevent you from changing the ride height (would be horrible in Germany...) or something else. As long as you don't touch the ground and don't lock your suspension, you can do what ever you want with it.
Printable View
Dunk is correct.
The rule does not prevent you from changing the ride height (would be horrible in Germany...) or something else. As long as you don't touch the ground and don't lock your suspension, you can do what ever you want with it.
There was not only a single but now multiple people who thought that changing your car set-up during competition was illegal?
My mind has officially been blown for the day.
The best thing to do would be to have pull/push rods for accel in order to bump up your CG. However, I do not think a part swap would be allowed without going back through tech. So the limitation we have on RH adjustment relates to the length of threads on the rod ends. A funny thing to note about this is that we are adjusting CG, a key thing with tilt testing. So it's possible that a team could make this adjustment and no longer pass tilt.
Good skidpad times are not quite possible without changing your setup after acceleration. Or try doing the acceleration with your skidpad setup and vice-versa and end high. (Yes I know Delft did it at fsuk this year... exceptions/rule).Quote:
Originally Posted by Alumni
Dylan, no a part swap would be 'illegal', that would require a rescrutineering and dsq for the previous dynamic events if I'm correct. otherwise you could rescrutineer haf your car after the accel/skidpad events. As long as the part isn't the same as the one which was scrutineerded.
You can obviously replace a broken part with a part with the same functionality.
But I'm diverting from the original theme of this topic: New rules. Lets wait untill 23rd? of August. Untill then just assume most of what has been said and keep your options open.
I think the rules are a bit too much.
Yes, Aero will still work, but for smaller teams, it will not justify spending time on it. I think the rule makers will get the exact opposite of what they wanted. Instead of "everybody has fairly good working big wings" (Delta between an awesome Monash/GFR/Munich package compared to a "quick and dirty" one is surprisingly small), it will happen that the good big teams will run with efficient, working wings and the smaller teams without them. Bigger delta in my humble opinion...
Looking forward to see the results, I know that the CAD workstations are running already... :)
This has been my opinion the whole time these rules have been talked about. And I can't think of a single series that has come up with these kind of rules before...Oh wait.Quote:
Originally Posted by JulianH
As we have continued to say in our feedback and in the surveys, this increased complexity in the rules benefits the teams with bigger resources and disadvantages smaller teams. I agree with what others have said that this will have the opposite effect of what the rules committee wants, which I would expect is a more even field. History has continuously shown (there are many examples) that tighter limits on the rules benefit bigger teams disproportionately because they have the resources to chase smaller gains in many areas, where smaller teams won't be able to "waste" resources to the same level.
I can confirm the CAD iterations are already running, watch out for 2015!
Yes. Just as I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeunMan
If we could do it, it'd be the best thing to do (for desired setup change). I was pointing out the limitation.
So there is no other way to lengthen a pushrod other than the rod ends at either end? Presuming you wanted more extension - you can't design something that could extend further??