2015 FSAE Rules

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Westly

Good teams are good, not because of their aero but because of their management, which is why I didn't believe the Aero rules needed to change. Aero was just another feather in their cap, but isn't worth 100s of points like some people believe.
Driver Training, Reliability, Preparation and statics are now even more important with these rules, with Technical Performance Potential between different concepts becoming even closer. With the aforementioned now in my mind worth more than technical development, now even more-so.

---

AMEN! Stupid Aero discussion...

GFR had an average laptime difference of 5.5 seconds in endurance at FSG, and almost 3 seconds in autocross. I am pretty confident that when you removed the wings from that car and let them do some setup changes and driver training for a week or so, they would still be fastest, albeit with a smaller difference. Consequently, I truly believe that the huge performance gap between top and not-so-top teams is not a single feature on the car but the overall concept and how good the team understands this concept.

Double post / sorry

The 'gap' has been there for a while. We did 4 seconds a lap faster than almost everyone else at FSG in 2010 without any aero (Michigan was ~50 sec slower in total on endurance, so > 2 seconds a lap average).

About finishing rates:

FSE 8/40 endurance (20%)
FSC 32/72 endurance (44%) if i counted correctly.

So the average is about near the 30-35% mark which is low.

Tristan, to be fair, the number of aero teams back in 2010 was really limited...

I think Aero is a nice gadget to make cars a bit faster. Not a game changer. Lutz is right there.

But, the question is, why we need such "F1-like" restrictions especially on this kind of new area of FSAE. It only lasted about 3 seasons with a large number of teams running them.

I like the 1,2m maximum height rule to prevent some teams going really insane and the "the mounting must be rigid" rule. But the rest is unnecessary.

Still, the rules are the same for everybody and it will be interesting to see the new cars. Sadly they will be a bit ugly :)

I think, with the turbo rules and the larger restrictor, the laptimes of the best combustion teams will only decrease even though wings/diffusers/etc. are limited in design space. I'm quietly confident that some teams (GFR, Monash, Zurich (although they're not combustion), Stuttgart, etc.) will find new inventive ways to reach the same downforce/drag numbers that they are currently running. However, for the most teams, a beneficial aerodynamic setup will become harder. I guess that was the point of these rules, make teams think again before they design something.

As far as game changers, I guess over the entire formula student history very little have occurred. Hopefully these rules will force someone (from teams big or small) to create a new game changer. It's going to be a challenge, and that's fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Westly

Good teams are good, not because of their aero but because of their management, which is why I didn't believe the Aero rules needed to change. Aero was just another feather in their cap, but isn't worth 100s of points like some people believe.
Driver Training, Reliability, Preparation and statics are now even more important with these rules, with Technical Performance Potential between different concepts becoming even closer. With the aforementioned now in my mind worth more than technical development, now even more-so.

---

I agree that good teams are good because of their management and not because of an aero package. But I think in FSAE it is healthy for different concepts to be similar in performance. With the current aero rules, the decision to run an aero package is a no-brainer (if you have some resources for it). Reducing the difference between aero cars and non-aero cars leaves the option to be competitive regardless of your choice of concept - just like is has been with 4-cyl versus single, petrol vs E85, steel frame vs carbon monocoque. In all cases one choice is probably slightly better than the other, but the quality of execution of your chosen concept is way way more important.

To me that is why FSAE is a beautiful engineering challenge. To be completely on top, you'll have to make a good conceptual choice (which takes a lot of time so requires resources). But a quick 'pen-and-paper' conceptual choice will take you a very long way if you succeed at understanding your own concept and executing it well. For a competition aimed at learning, this is great because students will arrive at the competition and ask themselves why another car is performing at the same level as their own despite looking completely different.

I will be very happy if you can look at the FSG endurance final and see aero and non-aero cars, monocoques and spaceframes, 4-cyl and single, turbo and atmospheric competing with each other (and that's only looking at combustion cars).

I think reduction in aero performance is a good idea, just probably not at the level done here. Having complicated wording and plenty of loopholes is not. The overall height is fine and a sensible value was chosen, as is the requirement to have mounting of a certain strength. I wonder if scrutineers will be applying 200N to the corners of endplates? Load application points (or zones) should be defined. With different scrutineers at different comps we don't want any inspection methods subject to a given view on the day. Teams need to be able to inspect their own cars before the comp and have a good understanding that it is compliant.

Performance could easily be changed (and adjusted) through a few simple measurements:

- Overall height
- Rear overhang
- Front Overhang
- Overall width (or relative to the wheels)

Three of these could have been changed by changing a number (or slight re-wording) already in the rules, the overall height would be added.

Now we have two different widths, a height limit for part of the front, no limit on height for the other part of the front wing, one for the rear, different limits for vertical surfaces with no definition as to how many degrees off perpendicular to the ground is considered vertical. As well as a rule that requires subjective analysis (i.e. "sturdy enough").

Once again the rule changes have come very late for the 2015 season. Australian teams are already most of the way through the build of cars designed for 2015 overseas are pretty much stuffed if designed around aero. International rules (i.e. all of them) should be released at least 18months before the first comp to use them, or allow a grandfathering clause. It causes a lot less distress to teams when they have plenty of time to digest the fact that they may have to radically change their car concept. Like in F1 when the turbos recently returned there will be plenty of moaning but they have no basis for saying they weren't well warned.

I would love to see results of the survey. As much as it was likely a flawed feedback mechanism, it was a good start to engaging the end clients (students) with the product development (FSAE).

Kev

Some nice posts here (good one Wes). I’m typing one-fingered today, so my inputs will be short.
- It is not up to the organizers to address reliability
- The teams choose their own destiny
- Think ambitions vs capability….
- Why do rule changes need reasons??
- Agreed more lead time would be nice, for the sake of international entries
- On the other hand, a robust design concept and delivery strategy should be competitive irrespective of a few specification changes
- I’d personally like to see more discussion here quantifying the execution side of things. Most teams are uncompetitive by a margin far greater than their concept’s potential
- I’d still love to see a well-managed team enter a “brown fruit box”. A concept car driven by underspecification and average materials. Underpowered aircooled single with a carb. Wooden chassis? Golf car F&R suspension. Average specs but built to sound engineering principles and delivered well. For comparative purposes of courses. At the end of the weekend, any team that finishes behind the fruit box runs a lap of the endurance track with their pants around their ankles…

Geoff, I hope this isn't too blue to not be the considered the fruit box...
It's not quite as basic as an air cooled single carb, but it started life as a watercooled, single carb.
We kept everything pretty basic, focused on getting a solid platform and getting it all together.

https://www.facebook.com/KetteringFS...type=3&theater

If it's not made of steel, it's aluminum, there is not a drop of composite materials on this car. The bodywork is aluminum, the wheels are off of an ATV as well as the diff and radiator and it was the 2nd cheapest car at the Lincoln competition (only 0.07 points behind first).
There isn't much to the driver controls other than a start and kill button and no driver clutch. We put a steering wheel in front of the driver and we ride it out by feel. The entire car is basically built from purchases out of the Summit (Drag) Racing and McMaster-Carr industrial supply catalogs. Parts that required special fabrication were pretty minimal. Even the rear uprights were fabbed from a single 2' x 2' sheet of steel (for both!). Brake rotors were manufactured in one total operation, pretty down and dirty there, no machining.

https://www.facebook.com/KetteringFS...type=3&theater

I learned it was a lot harder to fab 0.030" sheet for an entire part than typical tube parts.
We had some engine related problems at Michigan, regrouped, and returned to Lincoln for another top 10 finish.
I'm ready to see some endurance laps...

Wow..., I mow the lawn and ... 3 pages of new posts... So,

Minor, Slightly Off-Topic Post.
==========================

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MCoach

T1.2.3 The vehicle must maintain all required specifications, e.g. ride height, suspension travel...
...
Someone's already thought of the super adjustable ride height. Sorry to burst your bubble.

---

This strikes me as another one of those "Oh, its just TOOO HARD to go faster. There must be a Rule against it..."

1. As noted earlier, with 60%R you can have a CGH about 25 - 30 cm for good Acceleration. If you manage to get CGH down to 20 cm (8"), then congratulations, and 66%R will work well.

2. If "ride height" is never allowed to be changed, then why does (almost) EVERYONE have adjustable ride-height?

3. From memory, the "required specification" for ride-height has oscillated over the years between "minimum 1 inch measured ground clearance", and "no visible scraping". The "no scraping" Rule is most likely why some Teams fitted 1"+ adjustable ride-height, so low on smooth tracks, but higher on bumpy tracks to stop scraping.

4. Easiest way to make big ride-height changes is with direct-acting SDs, with multiple mounting holes on the chassis for the SD.

5. But better than above is "dynamic" ride-height change via adjustable "anti-squat/pro-lift". This simply requires multiple holes for the forward wishbone-to-chassis mounts. Perfectly legal, IMO.

So, once again: Best "launch" comes from lowish static-CG, then just the right amount of pro-lift for the first few metres.

Z