2015 FSAE Rules

[Big Bird]

Bit disappointing to read that Julian. Anyway, I sent you a PM

[Alumni]

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...)

[Kevin Hayward]

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

[Z]

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, ... sometimes you have to read the whole rule book to get the context...

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

[SomeOldGuy]

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.

[Pete Marsh]

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.

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

[Freddie]

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 ...

[Dunk Mckay]

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.

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.

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!

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.

[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

[BeunMan]

...
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.

If I remember correctly there are 6 Inch tyres available for not too much (slicks). Or try even smaller cart tyres, even lower.