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