Printable View
One simple thing to do is add an extra linkage in between to extend threads further out/in. Or an extra point on a bell crank.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Bird
Now, a suggestion for this topic, we should create a new thread for this because have derailed from the original topic.
UWA already did it with one of their cars (2006 I think). The pushrods had normal adjustability and a 2 position large adjustment as well. Not difficult to implement.
Kev
Wow on the aero changes. A massive change that will almost certainly see a lot fewer teams designing aerodynamic packages. On first glance it looks like a package designed to the new rules may have worse performance than a package designed to the rules prior to the last big change.
I also wonder how many teams will bother to look at DRS now. The narrow, low rear wing will have a lot less drag.
Unsprung mounting for the front wing almost looks like a necessity now. Springs will likely have to soften to gain some mechanical grip back, which will likely require a higher front wing (if sprung mounted).
Trevor is spot on. These rules will widen the performance gap between the haves and have nots, and fewer teams doing aero work overall.
The other sad thing is that Aero helped to encourage weight reduction. With aero the important number is how much downforce divided by car weight for your grip multiplier. Without that weight isn't as big an influence. What you lose on a tyres sensitivity to vertical load, you gain some back on increased temperature. In the past the lighter cars had almost no grip advantage compared to the heavier ones.
Oh well it was fun while it lasted.
Kev
I think the aero rules will widen the performance gap for the teams that aren't doing things right (or as well) in the first place. But it is not impossible to have a high performing car with no wings (UF finishing 9th and Auburn 7th with a 1.7pt gap, Univ Mich in 8th). In the case here, we may see a few of the top non aero cars improve relative to the rest of the competition. Rather, the rest of the competition may see a drawback with lessaero. To me it seems like too many teams were adding wings just to be fast and "competitive" and not understanding the fundamentals of aerodynamics.
A lot of people argue that teams with little resources will be hindered because of this. But has it not always been that way? Some teams have had excellent engine development programs, partially due to the resources they have available, and therefore have succeeded because of that. So to level the playing field should we restrict dyno usage to make the less competitive teams more competitive compared to the better teams? I wouldn't say so. This is a design competition. What everyone should get out of this program, more than anything else, is knowledge. Even if someone is designing wings and they are not able to design wings effective enough to be used with the new rules, they will still be walking out with good experience and research for future members to work off of. The new rules also require more creative thinking and hopefully we see some interesting designs.
Dylan,
I don't think that there is ever a case of "just" being able to add wings. Even if your aero justification is poor you still need to figure out how to make them, mount them, allocate appropriate resources etc.
The argument is not that changing aero rules will disadvantage lower resourced teams. The argument is that restrictive rules favour top teams. This would be true in every area. If you turned around and banned interconnected suspension, beams, CVT's (or put heaps of restrictions to make them much more difficult to implement) you are reducing the areas that a lower resourced, but innovative teams can find an advantage.
If there is only one clear concept to build to the whole competition becomes solely about resources and their management. Everyone is building the same thing. When you have a very open rule set even the super highly funded teams will not be able to try all of the concepts. This has been shown over and over again in professional competition.
Also sorry to be an arse but finishing 9th is not high performance. The delta in each of the events to a highly resourced and big aero team (GFR) was:
-3.7 pts Accel
-20 pts Skidpad
-49 pts Autocross
-73 pts Endurance
- 16.5 pts Efficiency
~162 dynamic points deficit.
smaller, but still large deficits to other top aero teams.
Sure the best non-aero cars can beat lower performing aero cars, but you would have to make a very good case for making the statement that the best non-aero cars can compete on a level playing field with the best aero cars. You mention teams not knowing fundamental and implementing wings just for speed, but if your team had made the right decisions you would also be running wings, and be closer in performance to the better teams. I'm not writing this as an attack. But if your points calcs say that you should be running wings, and you don't run wings, then you are making a bad engineering decision. To criticise teams that implement wings on this basis, but do so without full knowledge is a practice in hypocrisy.
Kev
So I guess here is where we define what a high performing car is. If you look at the rest of the top ten teams, where would you make the cut off for a "high performing" car? There is definitely a large gap between my team and GFR (as well as some of the other top teams) and I will never deny that. And saying "beat lower performing aero cars" is somewhat degrading when you look at a top 10 finish (as well as top 10 in Endurance). I also want to be clear that I never said the best non-aero car will be able to compete at the same level as the best aero car. From what I have seen in the competition in the past few years, aero is definitely the way to go for higher performance on the track and my team won't deny that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Hayward
Now why are we not running aero? Because of resources! We could come up with a simple airfoil geometry, make the molds, and get wings on without good understanding of the actual profile and aero effects, but where's the fun in that (aside from driving a car with big wings)? Sure we may have seen dynamic performance benefits, but what would you call a worse engineering decision, putting wings on without good understanding of their effects (aero balance, suspension loading, profile design, etc...) in order to, hopefully, increase dynamic performance or having that as a side project for development in future until the team can learn these fundamental effects from the system? And yes, calculating things like the extra loading from aero isn't too difficult, but it also extends into more areas such as rotor design to ensure we won't see failures from the extra forces.
Dylan,
I don't mean to degrade anyone's attempts. I don't think that a team needs to be the best team in the world to achieve good learning outcomes and do a good job. To put a definition on it I would say high performance would mean:
"The car and team are in the running to win the competition. This might be by purely beating everyone, or being good enough that they could take a win if a couple of better teams fail to finish endurance."
I don't like basing a definition on finishing place at all, but the idea of being in the hunt gives some credence to the idea that amongst the higher performing teams there is some trade-off between reliability and performance. It might be better to talk about targets, ie. a concept / team that is capable of scoring within 20-40 points of the best assuming:
4.8 skidpad
4s accel (or whatever history shows as the ideal accel time for IC - obviously contentious here.
some delta to best laptime (maybe this is best done with lapsims and search algorithms, rather than off data)
3L 98 fuel equivalent used (or similar target).
Finish all dynamic heats
We are trying to look at the top 1-2%. Probably works out to be whatever the top 3 does in any given comp. The top 10 includes about 30% of the finishers in a given event. Not even the top quartile. If reliability is evenly distributed amongst the teams (which it is not) that would mean had everyone finished in a 100 cars the 10th place finisher would have finished 33rd. In the case of the comp you mentioned 9 teams that finished below UF had an equal or better autocross score, 13 had a better skidpad score, 18 had a better acceleration score. Prior to the endurance UF was in 18th place dynamically. The top two overall were still the top two, in fact the top 4 overall were in the top 5 dynamically before endurance and pretty much in the same order. Their finishing place was not really determined by anyone else dropping the ball. Too many teams running in the midpack of finishers underestimate how far ahead the high performance teams actually are. This is not a particular attack on UF, or anyone else in a similar position.
In engineering design it is very clear that mistakes in conceptual design are much worse than mistakes in the detail. So yes waiting on implementation to understand the fundamentals, when you are aware of the definite performance benefit that is able to be implemented is the worse engineering decision. Any other statement would go against research and general understanding of the engineering design process.
It is a scientist who waits, the engineer acts.
As for the practical implementation molds aren't required, wings can have fibreglass or aluminium skins. The only reasonable resource limitation is manpower. I am familiar with the UF cars. Beautiful bodywork, and I love the Gulf colour scheme. If you can do that, you can do wings (maybe at the expense of less time on the beautiful bodywork). The understanding (aero balance, suspension loading, profiles) required for initial implementation can be found very easily. McBeath's competition car aero goes through a lot of the good basics with some reasonable numbers, combine that with some Benzing profiles (available on the net), and read the monash papers. You can design and build a pretty good package quite quickly.
The first ECU aero package was designed an built by a couple of first year students in about 6 months and improved laptimes by about 2 seconds over a 60s lap. Later, better built, lighter, more efficient designs followed. This process is improved becuase you have actual data and testing of the more agricultural versions. Needless to say none of the detailled improvements even come close to the initial advantage of having them vs not having them.
I know you probably think this is another response from a guy being a jerk rather than someone trying to point out objective engineering ideas. Sorry for that.
Kev
I have to step in and disagree with the idea that these restrictive aero rules favour the teams with more resources. If there is less potential down-force to be had from aero, then throwing massive resources at it will only gain you 5% now not 20% (not actual values). Teams that weren't running aero before, or were running crap aero (and now won't bother) will able to waste less time designing/debating aero and get on with the rest of their. Ultimately their performance will remain more or less the same and the teams that get huge benefits will now be going slower.
Case and point, because I like my old team: Brunel finished 11th overall at FSUK, I think that's 7th Combustion team, so I'm gonna say they'd have been top 10 if they'd been at Germany this year. The teams biggest drawbacks, as they have always been is budget (mnot tiny, but definitely limited), experience (30-odd brand new team members each year, 5-6 team managers that were new team members the previous year, no useful staff involvement to help carry over knowledge), AND manpower during the build phase (no accomodation provided over summer, so rarely more than 5 or 6 people actually end up working on the car at any one time, often less).
I won't go into all the reasons why, but essentially they end up scraping a car together less that 2 weeks before competition (sometimes much less) and don't really bother preparing statics because they don't have the time. Poor management (due to lack of instruction how to) plays a part.
So top 10 combustion is a pretty good result all things considered. If the team get their act together and start prepping for statics properly and maybe get a car built early enough to improve on the dynamics, then they would glide into the top 5 I should hope. Challenging for the top spot is perhaps a bit of a push, but for a car without aero that's pretty good.
We have been working on aero lately, but didn't get enough testing or data to run at FSUK. They may run it at FSCzech, but ultimately this year's package was about data gathering. Whether or not this data combined with the new aero rules means that they go ahead with a full aero package next year or not, I don't know, we'll see. But if they have the potential to challenge for top 5 wihout aero, then so do 3/4 of the teams out there, and that's with the current rules!
What frustrates me regarding these rules is there is little transparency as to why the rules were changed and why aerodynamics been targeted. Especially when there are other more serious safety issues present. There are only anecdotal reasons I have seen given for these changes, from the survey and FSAE Forum:
• It is often commented by judges, officials and others that have been involved in the various competitions for many years “wouldn’t it be great to change the rules to offer the students a new challenge”.
• A few of the better funded teams have done well with large wings that attempt to fully exploit the aero regulations, but it has been noted that many teams have followed down this path because other teams have been successful rather than because they understand how the benefits will be achieved.
• It is likely that the aero regulations will need to change in 2015 as there are concerns that the wings are too large, several wings have detached from cars causing concern about the safety of marshals and some of the cars have become unstable such that in several cases they have almost rolled over.”
• This was done because the rules committee was of the opinion that too little research into aerodynamics was done. They now feel that the time is there to tighten the rules again and make it a bit harder to create a beneficial aero setup.
1, The students don’t need greater challenges, the finish rate for fsuk and Michigan enduro was 24% and 32% respectivel.) So increasing the challenges is not relevant to most team. Why is this massive lack or reliability not being addressed?! 2. If teams are copying other designs this should be assessed in the design event and other areas can be just as easily copied as well 3. This seems like a knee-jerk reaction: Plenty of cars at fsuk and fsg caught fire or had carbon suspension which were arguably of greater risk, yet no-one even mentioned these occurrences. (I find it amazing that the area of failure, cause and effect is not recorded at competitions, so statistics on these can be gather to guide rules and safety in the future) 4. And the last one, basically they're offended by the size of the current wings… ?
There was an attempt to gain feedback from the FSAE community with the survey. Which now appears unlikely that the results will ever be published, I am unsure if they were even considered? (Why did I bother spending the time to reply!) What happened to this?
A1.1.1 of the rules state, the rules are to: “give teams the maximum design flexibility and the freedom to express their creativity and imaginations there are very few restrictions on the overall vehicle design…. The competitions themselves give teams the change to demonstrate and prove both their creativity and their engineering skills in comparison to teams from other universities around the world”. Yet the design flexibility is being taken away for little reason. They also restrict the ability of teams around the world to compete, as many Australian Teams would need to re-design half built vehicles to be rules legal for 2015. Further, teams can and will fit wings which fit within the boxes given, and it will reduce some of the questions raised by the compromise between cg height and rear wing height/size, reducing the potential to learn from these situations.
In my opinion the further the rules are restricted and have large changes implemented this leads to greater uncertainty,further increasing the gap between the big and small teams as they have the ability to better react to changes, this decreases safety as smaller teams alter designs to suit changes with limited time to consider all consequences, reduces the ability of teams to compete internationally, reduces teams ability to implement any sort of multi-year planning and reduces the range of concepts and approaches available to teams.
Westly
Edit: Dunk, I agree you don't need Aero to place well. FSUK showed that reliability and preparation are king. (14th place was the 500pt cross over and 350 points separated those teams. eek!). With roughly 30 points separating each team, alot of technical improvement is required to make that gap up, ~35kgs of weight reduction, or significant Aero improvements based on our lap simulations. Aero was a good place for teams to actually gain significant performance benefits from technical design when your in the top couple of placings at competition. But the deciding factor to doing well was preparation and reliability in the end, so sounds as though Brunel was lucky more than anything if they finished 2 weeks before comp, and with little testing finished endurance.
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.
Sorry for writing an essay.
Dunk,
I'm going to echo Kevin by saying this, and like him I don't mean to sound degrading.
However, as close to the top as an 11th overall spot might sound, Brunel were over 260 points behind fifth place.
It seems to me to be a bit of a stretch to suggest that that difference (almost a 50% points increase for Brunel) can be overcome by driving a bit earlier and better statics preparation.
Unfortunately the scores of the teams just outside the 'top' drop off very quickly.
Thijs
AMEN! Stupid Aero discussion...Quote:
Originally Posted by Westly
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Westly
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.
==========================
This strikes me as another one of those "Oh, its just TOOO HARD to go faster. There must be a Rule against it..."Quote:
Originally Posted by MCoach
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
Hi Geoff,Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Bird
I dont believe that it is the organisers responsibility to address reliability, nor should rules be changed to address this, but they can encourage it through design feedback. The australian comp was quite harshly critised by overseas judges in 2012 with all the cars too heavy and out of touch with the leaders in europe amongst\other issues. And this seems to be a common theme from what I have seen, that officials much more greatly encourage optimisation, vehicle lightness and other additional features, rather than simplicity and reliability. If questions were raised by judges/officials, not nessecarily in scored events, not on how much weight they managed to reduce their components by, but what features/systems they have implimented to improve reliabiltiy this would encourage this trend.
Interesting to note: The top 5 in Design at 2014 FSG didnt finish endurance, 1 of the Top 5 in Design at Michigan finished enduro (GFR, 4th) and ETS has won design twice this year (Michigan and North), but failed to compete either competitions endurance.
I know this only addresses a portion of what you are trying to convey, but I need to get back to work!
MAJOR, ON-TOPIC, RANT!
======================
This is probably a complete waste of time, because all of the very REASONABLE issues below have been extensively covered before, but are clearly being IGNORED by the Rules Committee.
1. Why are FSAE Officials so keen to tell the students that "FSAE is NOT Mini-F1!", while simultaneously being so determined to TURN FSAE INTO MINI-F1!?
Blind-Freddy can see that these aero-changes take their inspiration directly from F1. (This has been noted by quite a few other posters here).
Very HYPOCRITICAL, and very UN-IMAGINATIVE!
2. Why do the changes have far more blue ink than red (ie. more added words, than subtracted)? Again, clearly part of the on-going trend to turn FSAE into a spec-series, JUST LIKE F1.
So, for example, how long before the students' choice to select their preferred weight-distribution is subverted by some dim-witted Official's brainless opinion as to what "looks" good. Just like in F1, where F:R tyres sizes are very tightly controlled, purely because of one dim-wit's "aesthetic" tastes!
3. Why, despite suggestions going back at least to 2005, are there STILL NO DEFINITIONS of what exactly constitute these tightly controlled "Aerodynamic Devices"???
What is poor young Hu Mi, the Aero-Lead from Team Outer Mongolia, to make of these new Rules?
"Ooooo..., what is 'wicker bill'?
I think ... must be like 'duck bill'... Yes, yes..., because all Westerner have very big nose, like duck... So Rule say we must make VERY BIG nose on car, like duck.
Oooo..., or maybe NOT nose... Who knows...????? Oooo, now my head hurt..."
Clearly, the Rules Committee must be dominated by Arts Majors, because Engineers should know how to put together UNAMBIGUOUS documentation packages. Or, at least, they used to... :(
4. Further to above.
Can a "bodywork nose" extend further forward than 700 mm in front of front-tyres?
How will Hu Mi ever know?
Can "bodywork" extend further rearward than 250 mm behind rear-tyres, or aft and outside-of-the-inside of rear-tyres?
Specifically, could the rear-tyres have drag-reducing streamlined wheelpods behind them? If not, then WHY NOT!? (Oh yes, they're not in F1...)
5. "T9.5.1 Minimum Radii ... of forward facing edges ... 5 mm for horizontal edges ... 3 mm for vertical edges ..."
What about forward-facing edges that are NOT purely horizontal or vertical?
Are sloping edges NOT allowed (maybe because they are too 3-D-ish!)?
And its seems that REARWARD-facing edges can be, and are encouraged to be, RAZOR-SHARP!!!!
Does anyone on the RC think these things through?
6. "T9.7.1 Aero Device Stability ... ADEQUATE rigidity ... move EXCESSIVELY..."
Has anyone ever seen an Engineering Specification that is more wishy-washy than above?
How about "... Aero Devices that you just want to give a big hug ..."?
Would a cleverly designed auto-feathering wing be allowed or banned (ie. a wing that automatically reduces its AoA and DF at higher speeds, by TE or flaps flexing downward)?
Is all this ambiguity specifically left in there so that certain unimaginative Officials can arbitrarily ban the more creative Teams, simply because they don't like them?
7. Finally (for now), WHY SO LITTLE "OPENNESS AND TRANSPARENCY" in this whole business?
Oh yes, that would expose all the Official hypocrisy, and fear of C&I...
It is quite obvious that the Officials proposing the above Rules changes have very limited C&I. They clearly have a preconceived (and extremely DULL) notion of what they want all the Teams to build, and that is a Mini-F1 car!
Z
Maybe I am just getting older, but I have to agree with everything Z says...
Small front wings and narrow rear wings just scream F1... Especially there is simply no reason for a "max 25cm height" front wing just looks!
The Minimum radii rule is still a pain. In the UK 2012 we had to put some stupid tape on the trailing edges because the scrutineer didn't care that the edge was clearly rearward facing, he said everything had to be above the minimum radii. If this will be still enforced 2015, we have incredible inefficient airfoils..
I think the point Kevin made is correct (I said it in my last post): Restrict the height and maybe reduce the front and rear allowed position. That's how to restrict aero, not with stupid keep out zones and "xy percent of the tire must be unobstructed". I simply don't get why the height of the front wing is even considered to be restricted.
I think the teams should send in something like an SES for the Aero mounting with clear rules what the mounting has to withstand, nothing which depends on the mercy of the scrutineers.
As long as we are still going to see flying tires from two design finialists in one endurance, I think there are bigger problems than that.
Last thing about the openness:
As Europe is still the center of electric FSAE, we have the same discussion here: They want to limit the power of 4WD to 55kW and give the 2WDs 80kW. Nobody knows why and what's the point for that. And of course nobody of the Rule-Makers wants to talk. The only really open guys are the Germans (this has to be said!). They are willing to sit down and make their case. Interestingly, they see the whole thing different...
I can see the max 25cm height rule as being an attempt to improve reliability through better cooling airflow enforced on the teams, but that's a bit of a weak argument. Especial considering the loopholes in the rules (anyone thinking about combining GFR's front wing with Greenteam's rear flap? I'll say no more for fear of giving it away completely).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westly
Don't worry, I'm under no illusion that my old team are going to magically jump up to the top. There was certainly a lot of luck involved, as in fact they did not have 2 weeks of testing, but 2 days. 2 weeks is what we usually get. 2 years ago we made the move to designing for reliability above all else (to finish first first you have to finish), which is probably why they finished endurance. They also got "meatballed" because of too much steam coming out the breather (driver hadn't turned the water pump on after the engine had heated up), which cost even more points.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thijs
And it's not a case of better statics prep, but actually doing statics prep in the first place.
The point I was trying to make, which you both touched on, is that for a good non-aero car concept and a team with limited resources the potential is there to do very well, !!!IF!!! the team and project is manage properly. Every single shortcoming Brunel has can be probably be traced back to poor management, and perhaps a but of inexperience. So to start accusing any rules of favoring teams with better resources is damn lazy.
The only advantage teams with better resources have is that the team managers can't sit around all day complaining about how bad they have it compared to the rich teams, and have to get off their asses and go do some proper engineering.
I both agree and agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Westly
I don't think the rules should be changed to improve reliability, not the technical ones anyway. But I do think the organizers are the only body with the ability to impress upon teams the importance of reliability. They are certainly not doing it themselves, and we can scream and shout about it on here all the time but it's not helping.
There's a number of forums that could be used to greater to effect to push this idea, 'Learn to Win' for example, in the UK. They should make it their motto: "To finish first, first you have to finish" and scream it at everyone there all day long. It shoud also be integrated into all of the speeches, seminars and ceremonies at the competition events as well.
It does seem like chasing lower mass and big aero has been a contributing factor, but as I said, I agree that the rules shouldn't take the responsibility of reliability out of the teams hands.
I feel like most teams take it as being all or nothing. Push to be close to the top, or don't even bother. This drives them to push their designs to the limit, the time they spend designing to the limit, and to neglect all else (including good management). Would a shake up of the points system that makes any difference.
If there was only 100 points between the top 10 teams instead of 300, would the be a bigger push to find that extra time to maximize a small points difference? Or would the fact that good points are almost guaranteed even if you're not quite quickest be enough to divert more focus onto finishing in the first place.
What if over half the points came purely from finishing within 150% of the fastest car? Surely just finishing faster than a crawl would become more important and people would take less risk?
What about (as I've suggested before) slashing design points (in half?) if you don't finish endurance?
There are probably plenty of ways to improve reliability across the entire field, without changing the technical rules. But the only body of people with the ability to influence the entire field is the event organizers and rules makers.
Julian,Quote:
Originally Posted by JulianH
I also agree with most of what Z says, but one comment about your point on SES like documentation for aero mounting. The one problem I have with saying "if you're going to have wings, your mounts need to withstand xxxx newtons in direction X, yyyy newtons in direction Y" is that if a team shows up with Monash sized wings, the loading conditions are going to be considerably different compared to ETS sized wings. Unfortunately, removing the flat requirement adds back subjectivity, which is what we're trying to avoid as much as possible.
I agree, the height of the front wing rule is simply stupid. If the rulesmakers wanted to make sure the drivers could see something, have a "colored dot test" where driver must sit in the seat, belted in, full gear and must tell a judge what color a certain dot is, if it's placed x meters in front of the car at y angle from the car centerline.
-Matt
I have had another quick look at these 2015 Rules Revisions. These are described on the SAE site as,
"The long awaited decision on the revised aerodynamic rules changes are now published.
... Though the dimensions are correct there is some final word-smithing to be ..."
Just some "word-smithing", huh?
~o0o~
So...
"T9.2 Location - Front Mounted Devices
T9.2.1 In plan view, no part of any aerodynamic device, wing, under tray or splitter can be:
a. Further forward than 700 mm (27.6 inches) forward of the fronts of the front tires
b. Wider than the outside of the front tires measured at the height of the hubs.
T9.2.2 When viewed from the front of the vehicle the part of the front wheels/tyres that are more than 250 mm (9.8 inches) above ground level must be unobstructed by any part of the aerodynamic device or other bodywork, with the exception of any vertical surfaces (end plates) less than 25 mm in thickness.
Note: 9.2.1 and 9.2.2 apply with the wheels in the straight ahead position."
My interpretation of this, based on my understanding of the English language and the figure attached to the proposed Rules, is that it is PERFECTLY LEGAL to have a "venitian blind" of front wings, with chord = 625 mm, span = full-width of car, and reaching from about 550 mm above ground ALL THE WAY UP TO THE EDGE OF SPACE!!! Or higher, if you want...
~o0o~
And...
"Between the centrelines of the front and rear wheel axles, an aerodynamic device (e.g. undertray) may extend outboard in plan view to a line drawn connecting the outer surfaces of the front and rear tyres ...[blah, blah]"
So it also seems that full-width wings above the cockpit area are legal and can be at ANY HEIGHT AT ALL. Note that the UNDEFINED (!) "undertray" is only given as an "example".
~o0o~
What you have here, dear FSAE students, is some Kindergarten kiddies who have barely learnt how to ride their little push-cars, but are now sitting in the cockpit of the Jumbo jet that you are all flying in. And don't they just love pushing and twiddling with all those little knobs and dials, and making all the pretty lights flash on and off.
If you let them continue with this, then there is only one way it will end. Not pretty.
I strongly suggest that all Teams send official letters, on your School letterheaded paper, to this Rules Committee, and ask for just two things.
1. That you be given the names of the various RC Members who propose these Rules changes. This should include the higher level members who sanction these changes.
2. That those RC Members be held responsible (preferably FINANCIALLY responsible!) for any disputes that arise from the above sort of ATROCIOUSLY WORDED Rules. (For example, when a Team arrives at a competition and is ordered to toss its very expensive mega-front-&-mid-aero-package, even though the Rules do NOT specifically ban it.)
At the very least, the responsible RC Members should be publicly ridiculed.
(I note that it is pointless for me to write to the RC directly, but I will do my best with the public ridiculing. :))
Z
Q. How many arms does a FSAE Organizer have?
A. The same number as you do.
OK, so maybe that is a smart-a**e way of making a point, but having been on both sides of the fence I know how many have opinions on how to improve this thing, and how few are willing to invest their own time in actually doing it.
That is not to say that the proposed rules are worded well, or couldn't be improved. But, especially to the student generation out there - if you want to see change, then get involved.
And sorry, I don't think it is "the organizers" responsibility to lead the teams by the hand through the whole reliability lesson. Personally, I have invested heaps of time and energy writing on these boards about prioritizing and reasoning your way through your projects, and have turned myself inside out thinking up metaphors to bring the lessons back to your everyday lives. I've seen any number of FSAE officials on here (e.g. Edward, Doug, Claude, Pat) offering similar advice about understanding priorities and the value of presenting a reliable, tested vehicle. If the lesson hasn't been learned yet, and if the pain of repeated failures within your own teams hasn't hammered the lesson home, then it isn't going to be learned by tweaking points allocations.
Cheers,
Geoff
Z - I like to think of this as taking our engineering learning experience to the next level. Before, our customer requirements were quite open. The customer simply asked for an autocross car which would be priced appropriately, able to perform well in structured acceleration, skidpad, autocross, and endurance events, able to be marketed well, and would be found on good engineering design principles. The task was easy to identify.Quote:
Originally Posted by Z
Too easy to identify. Now the customer has decided that they would like us to meet the exact same deliverables as before but the car must also 'look a certain way'. Sure, marketing a look or defending the engineering design principles which developed the newest generation of cars will be skewed by external forces which has little basis on the deliverables at hand, but it does legitimately make Formula Student more like the real world.
I am positive that every engineer who participates in the wonderfully unrestricted world of Formula Student will leave their team and go to a company where their customer is asking them to design and build the toughest earth digger ever to grace this planet, but it 'must look elegant, like a ballerina'. My cinicism is that the customer will always have at least one deliverable which is impossible or silly when juxtaposed to the rest. Why make Formula Student any different?
If we as engineers are going to have to deal with a unreasonable customer or a 'pointy-haird boss' for the rest of our lives, why let us live in the false eutopia of this reasonably unrestricted design competition? From a logical standpoint, it simply does not make any sense.
---
I would like to thank our 'garbageman' for sitting at his computer and shouting on our behalf.
---
I will clarify my intent. I am not upset with introducing new rules. Nor am I upset with the direct impact it has on my team's performance. I am confident that we will come up with a good solution in the new rules set. What is frustrating is the timing of creating a new set of rules which forces teams already constructing their car for the next season to go back to the drawing board. Additionally, a rules set which is worded so criptically, the gap between 'intent' of a rule and wording of the rule is only widened.
Z: While not having the rules in front of me, I'm 90% sure that those "loopholes" that you propose are not loopholes. Both these scenarios are covered in the rules, while not being specifically for aerodynamic devices. But that's how it is, sometimes you have to read the whole rule book to get the context; not read every single rule by it self and scream about it not covering every scenario.
I agree with Jay on the new rules, I find them good enough. Not perfect (I think there are some loopholes), but certainly not that bad as some suggests. My only "fear" is that these rules effectivly make the combination of 13" wheels and aero obsolete. This would mean that a team coming from a 13" no aero car (like us) have a defined "best" development path (transition from 13" to 10" or smaller, then go for aero) instead of being able to choose multiple paths without too much penalty. I would also have preferred to have the rear wing height in relation to the main hoop, to see teams make the trade-off between high roll hoop and aero, but that is a personal opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z
The three points you made:
1. The "incredible high front wing": The rule makers introduced to nice little rule "it must be positioned not to hit the driver in an accident." (or something like that). A front wing above the tires will, if failed, hit the driver pretty good. So that's out.
2. Wings above the cockpit area: Are banned by the nice little rule "The driver egress must be unobstructed" (or something like that).
Those things are going to bite you ;) "Luckily" they are not 100% defined, so they can kill you with the "intend" of those rules... The rules commitee made the mistake to define "open wheeler" in the last year and got the Michigan Ann Arbor car as response to mock them. So they will not make that mistake again.
3. Every competition participant signs some funny documents about liability and so on. So we all can write some nice letters but the guys won't care about it...
Geoff,
so far, I'm not too old, not too grumpy to just sit here and shout. I'm trying to reach out to those guys. As I said there is discussion in Europe about the power limit of 4WD Electric cars. So we gathered all the "big teams" with 4WD and sat down with the German organisers. It works. In contrast to that, I was trying to contact the FSAE organisation about the 300V limit at Lincoln that is simply there to prevent those mean European teams to come to the US and win the competition over there. Result: Nothing. It's not like a page with contact details where you can write to Mister Miller or Mister Deakin or Miss Smith about something. It's a closed door organisation.
I really would try to help them out.
After the first drops of "2015 Rules" came out, we proposed to do LapSim with differnet concepts to help them balance the rules (if that's what they want to do). But what was the result? Correct: Nothing.
From what we heard, all those rules are made by gut feeling of some old guys. No data behind it, just "what they like".
A competition that has become so professional (at least in Germany and Austria...) should be better than that when it comes to rule changes.
I mean we can leave the discussion about wings behind. As Jay said, the teams will bounce back, it's not too difficult to trim your package until May. But what comes next? Ban of Single-Cylinders in September 2016 for the 2017 season? Ban of 10'' tires in October 2019? Ban of Carbon Fibre?
So yes, I was trying to help, I am always the first guy to give feedback to the organizers when I participated, I write to them throughout the year with suggestions and yes I will help organize something but I will not be the next guy behind closed doors that isn't allowed to talk about decisions. That's not my outlook on this competition.
Bit disappointing to read that Julian. Anyway, I sent you a PM
Julian - I have had the exact same experience with the RC here in the good ole USA.
At one point our team was actually working with our advisory (he had been on the RC in the 90's and still held close ties with many of the active members) and the committee themselves to do some physical testing on proposed rule changes over the summer one year with an old car. Hours before the testing was to begin we got a call that it was all off because a certain member - still very active in the FSAE community - was afraid that his idea for a rule change might not work and he could not deal with being humiliated in front of colleagues and our student team.
I remember being called to a meeting at MIS with some other big team's team captains/chief engineers to "discuss" future rule options with the RC. It turned into such a bickering argument that the then head of the rules committee called the meeting over after 30 minutes, apparently disgusted that we didn't all heap praise on him and thank him for what a great job he was doing. (Ed. - I should note I was still a young pompous college student at this time so my memory may not be telling me the whole truth here...)
Shortly after graduating I worked as a tech inspector as my job would allow it. Every time I offered to give input on the rules as a former participant and current inspector, I was quite rudely denied any input, receiving a typical response somewhere along the lines of "We're all old and have been doing this longer than you, so there is no way you could know more than us." (Again my memory may not be 100% accurate here...)
Geoff,
I think the community has shown it is quite happy to provide constructive feedback for rule changes. What would help is good lead time, and a willingness to put ideas forward. I am not sure what the answer rate was for the aero rules survey, but I could fairly safely say that everyone involved here would have put in a response. Some of the surprise lays in the fact that the final rules were quite a bit different to the options laid out for discussion. It makes it seem as if the feedback willingly given is not worth giving in the first place. This may not be true, but without some sort of communication it is difficult to know one way or another.
I think another area that teams could help (especially with the exclusion zones) is by helping with the diagrams. A good 3d representation would go a long way to describing the intended rule.
I think it would help even if the feedback requested was along the lines of:
"Here are the rules that are coming in 2 years, could the community review them to help with final wording, as well as pick out potential loop-holes."
As far as I understand the process there are a number of tasks in forming reviews:
- Rules review
- Proposing conceptual changes
- Writing the words
- Review of proposed rules
- Communication of rule changes
I can see a part for the community in all aspects of this process without needing to provide direction or take over the process. It would slow the process down to involve the teams in this way, but I think it would be for the best.
Kev
Freddie,Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddie
I have just re-read the whole of one of the recent versions of the Rules (there are many versions), ... and NONE of those loopholes are covered.
~o0o~
To repeat my point here, FSAE/FS is supposed to be about "educating the next generation of Engineers".
As such, I would imagine that the Organisers would try to act as "good role-models". One way they could do this is by producing "Rules" that are exemplary models of good Engineering documentation. That is, Rules that are complete (all necessary information in there), concise (no redundant waffle), and thus crystal clear.
Instead, they ambiguously offer this.
* Option 1. - The literal interpretation of the Rules has the cars being ALLOWED to carry large front-wings mounted at driver's-neck-height, and with razor-sharp trailing-edges.
If this is indeed the true "intention" of the Rules, then the Rules Committee should publicly confirm it. They should also explain why they have taken this very IRRESPONSIBLE path, given all their bleating about high-wings being so dangerous. (Maybe they consider an extremely quick and neat decapitation is acceptable?)
* Option 2. - The "intent" of the Rules is that high front-wings, and razor-sharp TEs, are NOT ALLOWED.
In this case the RC should explain why they are so INCOMPETENT that they cannot clearly specify this in their draft Rules. It is not hard! Just some words and figures showing where, and where not, parts of the car can go.
(BTW, because of "The Law of the Excluded Middle", there are NO OTHER OPTIONS. So the RC is guilty of at least one of the above, ie. IRRESPONSIBLE or INCOMPETENT.)
~o0o~
So, to repeat the main point yet again, the problem is not so much the Rules per se, but the fact that a bunch of INCOMPETENT BUFFOONS are messing with them.
Furthermore, these buffoons have locked themselves in the cockpit of the Jumbo Jet that you are all flying in, so they can mess to their heart's content. They refuse to talk to any of the passengers (ie. you students), and they won't even give you their names. But don't they just love fiddling with all those knobs and buttons.
Fortunately for many of you students, FSAE Airlines is not your only option. Some of you have the option of flying with FSUK, or FSG, or others, and it seems that some of those flights do actually have competent pilots in the cockpit.
But if you happen to be onboard Flight FSAE, you might want to start banging on the cockpit door. Or else strap on a parachute, make your way to the emergency exits, and prepare to jump! :)
Z
Just so no one starts down the road of high front and over driver wings before the final rules come out... Here is what will keep you from just attaching super high wings everywhere but the back of the car.
T9.7.2 The wing or wings must be mounted in such positions, and sturdily enough, that any accident is unlikely to deform the wings or their mountings in such a way to block the driver’s egress.
But it seems as though if they are mounted rigidly enough there is no limit to the wing height forward of the roll hoop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeOldGuy
Actually, there is plenty of real estate on most cars to be able to MOUNT your rear wing in the "Location - General" area between the wheel base, and such have no restrictions beyond the rear overhang limit and keep out area above the tyres.
My guess is they just want to restrict the rear wing size (or at least make it difficult) for unsprung, or semi unsprung devices, and as long as you are happy to carry the mounting structure etc to go forward of the rear axle you can go big.
Fit Delft's tyres, and a little tweak here and there, and GFR's existing massive front wing is all good. Or just mount it in the general area, and do what you want.
Re wings vs driver - cage it like a sprint car, all good!
Pete
Z: I would argue that T4.7.1 (2014 rules) and T9.7.2 (proposed rules) in combination with T4.8 (2014 rules) would close those loopholes quite quickly. At least for now, I can't picture a sound design that passes all these rules in combination.
Though, if what JulianH and Alumni says is true (I can't comment since I haven't been in any rule discussion), that is what I find more troubling. While Formula have made me and others "douchebag engineers", I have yet not met anyone that has not become a lot more humble from the experience, and I like to think that it is a common occurance for everyone involved. It sure helps having your designs blow up (literally or figuratively) a couple of times ...
The section heading might be "Rear Mounted Devices", but the rule says: "In plan view, no part of any aerodynamic device, wing, undertray or splitter can be:[...]" So that applies to all aerodynamic devices regardless of where they are mounted to, the section heading is just indicative of where they might be. Also, please differentiate between "mounted IN a location" and "mounted TO a location" the two are not the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete Marsh
Yes to this. If the rule's not changed I can see either a lot of cars being DQ'd in scrutineering based on "scrutineer decides it's not safe", or a major advantage given to teams that are able to afford custom low profile tyres to maximise the potential for the front wing. Another rule that increases the great cost divide.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete Marsh
I disagree, those words appear in section T9.3.1, quite clearly a sub section of 9.3
I don't see how anyone could interpret such a sub heading as being generally applicable to all aerodynamic devises.
And the heading
"T9.3 Location - rear mounted devises: " (assuming there is supposed to be a dash in there)
Not grammatically correct, but however includes the word "mounted", where as you are interpreting it as if it did not. Clearly the word is there for a reason, whatever it is, and the location of the device's mounting on the vehicle is the pertinent factor that categorises the devise, rather than the position of the devise it's self. I can't see how any other interpretation would be possible?
Pete
If I remember correctly there are 6 Inch tyres available for not too much (slicks). Or try even smaller cart tyres, even lower.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunk Mckay