Rule Stability-Time for change? [Archive]

MikeWaggoner at UW

09-24-2002, 08:27 AM

I think if a team wants to keep bringing the same car every year, it's their choice. On the one hand, it does show that refining the same idea EVERY YEAR leads to a better car (look at the big auto makers etc.).
The main thing about repeating I dislike is the learning experience. By starting a completely new design the current team then learns all the pitfalls you run into with a big project, and schools that replicate, even if they produce champion cars, are probably hurting their students.
One rule change I would suggest though is to make the racing less important and the design judging more important. Giving bonus points for trying new things, even if they don't work, would make the event more technically interesting in my opinion (and favor V8's ;-)

Western Washington University FSAE
dot.etec.wwu.edu/fsae

Pat D'Rat

09-24-2002, 04:08 PM

Ah, I love the innocence of thought that a change in the formula will give some of the smaller teams a better chance. History in all sorts of Motorsport has shown that this is far from the case.
Seriously, I think the developing 'sameness'of cars is something that does need looking at.
Two solutions have been hinted at, one being the use of open differentials and the other being the making the event a wet event. This latter idea would have the benefits of improving the lot of those unlucky enough to run in the wet at a wet and dry changeable event. After all, it is easier to make a dry event into a wet event than vice versa.

'Near enough' means you missed !

Team Delorean

09-25-2002, 04:06 PM

"Ah, I love the innocence of thought that a change in the formula will give some of the smaller teams a better chance."

I love the fact that nobody said that until you did. Nobody's talking about giving smaller teams a chance, people are more talking about the lack of innovation in succesful teams from year to year.

peanut1

09-26-2002, 01:39 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>I love the fact that nobody said that until you did. Nobody's talking about giving smaller teams a chance, people are more talking about the lack of innovation in succesful teams from year to year.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. I have been thinking of two interesting potential rules changes.

One is a minimum weight. I think it would be interesting to see how the lighter weight (most of the top contenders) teams "spent" an extra 50lbs. I don't think it should be heavy, just a bit heavier than needed for a current reliable car (480 minimum maybe?)

Second is a displacement limit of 595cc's. Pretty easy to see the effects of that one /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

If I were still in school I'd be pretty pissed with either of these but as an alum viewing from a distance I would love to see the teams react to the challenge.

A wet event is a great idea, never thought of that one! This would reduce the power dependency, open up tire choice, advance the development of racing ABS/TCS/ESP, and give the northern teams a bit less of a disadvantage when it comes to driving conditions, I like it!

Alex

Charlie

09-30-2002, 12:36 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by peanut1:
A wet event is a great idea, never thought of that one! This would reduce the power dependency, open up tire choice, advance the development of racing ABS/TCS/ESP, and give the northern teams a bit less of a disadvantage when it comes to driving conditions, I like it!

Alex<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, and it'd be 90% driver skill!!

-Charlie Ping
Auburn University FSAE 1999-present

Nigel Lavers

09-30-2002, 08:42 PM

I don't think that a minimum weight is a good idea---I actually think a maximum weight would be good to assure that the teams aren't showing up with a lousy hunk o' junk.

There is already the unwritten rule of no car under 500lbs will make it into the desing finals and I think that's extremely smart. It makes teams focus on the real objective rather than poking around with technology that won't be of any use on a heavy car.

Personally I think that the rules are good right now and don't need much change.

Nigel Lavers

Team Delorean

10-01-2002, 07:43 PM

I don't like the idea of a wet event; this SHOULDN'T be about driver skill, it should be about engineering.
As far as the ludicrious 500lb car comment, are you kidding? Sure, if you're still making a steel tubeframe car with your rock and adz then maybe you can't get it under 500 lbs, but if you look at what real race teams do in higher level racing (what's this competition named after again?) you realize that a monocoque will make your car lighter, stiffer and possibly safer than a steel tubeframe. (Look at aluminum riveted monocoques of the 70's+ and composite monocoques of today).
So, the idea of 'showing up with a lousy hunk of junk' seems to apply to 500+ lb spaceframe cars.
Why have sub 500lb cars not fared better? Because it's usually teams that INNOVATE with other ideas as well, and admittedly that does hurt them in the actual competition because they're trying untested ideas. It may also be the additional build time with monocoques takes time away from the testing which is vital for this competition.
Sub-500lb cars may also be saving weight in way which they shouldn't (hey, we can save 2 lbs on the car by using inadequate heims, lets do it! etc.)

Team Delorean

10-01-2002, 07:46 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>A wet event is a great idea, never thought of that one! This would reduce the power dependency, open up tire choice, advance the development of racing ABS/TCS/ESP, and give the northern teams a bit less of a disadvantage when it comes to driving conditions, I like it!

Alex<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

TCS as an element would be cool, but it may be out of reach for most teams... Keep in mind that some teams really only have 4 good workers...
As far as a 'Northern Advantage', why don't you just wet down the track first to get experience. I can sure tell you I'd kill to have sun and a dry track.

Mr Cassa

10-01-2002, 10:45 PM

For those who might have missed the judging at this year's comp, i believe that wollongong, Australia's only team in detroit this year ran a 485lb steel space frame. Oh, they also came second in design.

Perhaps their choice was limited to what their sponsors would let them, but it does show that sub 500lb cars do make the finals. It also shows that the space frame is not dead and buried.

I think most other cars in aus are running space frames. I'd like to hear how some of the other methods are working out. I think UNSW was using aluminium honeycomb, but i doubt there's a carbon chassis out there this year.

In terms of rule changes, it is an engineering competition, first and foremost, so maybe that's where the rule changes need to come from... perhpas a simple reweighting of the points to give those teams who know and can explain the engineering behind the design more of a chance...

Richard Lewis

10-02-2002, 12:42 AM

You also might want to note that Cornell, the winning car in design and overall used a steel space frame this past year as well.

-------------------------
UVIC Formula SAE Team
http://members.shaw.ca/drax77/UVICFSAEcar.jpg
http://www.engr.uvic.ca/~fsae

Mr Cassa

10-02-2002, 01:36 AM

Interesting point - Perhaps not as innovative, but at least the top 2 teams in design ran a space frame. At a guess, i'd also say cornell came in at under the 500lb mark?

Charlie

10-02-2002, 06:02 AM

Mr. Cassa I belive you are confused, it's sub-500 lb cars that DO make the finals. No cars over 500 lbs are in the finals.

Team Delorean- sub 500 lb steel space frames showed your car thier rearend last year (if you even have a team, I never trust anyone who fails to even give thier location, yet alone thier team, to post anything truthful or productive). Yes, overall the monocoque chassis might be preferrable, but has one EVER won? The fact that steel tubing members are required in the rules make the monocoque much less des***ble. A lighter car and stiffer frame will be faster and handle better, no matter what the type.

If you are looking at the type of frame, rather than its specifications, you are a poor engineer. Georgia Tech didn't make a steel space frame that weighed ~440 lbs, finished third in Detroit and winning in england, by using 'sub-par components'. I didn't see them brake. It's called engineering, making the same parts lighter and as strong or stronger, Apparently the top teams optimization of a less des***ble formula seems to work pretty well.

-Charlie Ping
Auburn University FSAE 1999-present

MikeWaggoner at UW

10-02-2002, 04:18 PM

"The fact that steel tubing members are required in the rules make the monocoque much less des***ble." "If you are looking at the type of frame, rather than its specifications, you are a poor engineer."

The steel tubes aren't required by the rules except for the rear roll hoop... Monocoques are superior since they provide more strength in the opposition of forces that you see in a formula car and they can be torsionally stiffer for a given weight, that's why they're used in F1 and where not prohibited by the racing rules. You can have a good car with either type, but if all cars had the same powerplant and suspension then monocoques would win.
As far as the question as to whether any team has won with a monocoque? Maybe not in FSAE, but look at racing as a whole (use search terms like F1, McLaren, Chapparal, Colin Chapman to find winning monocoques).

Western Washington University FSAE
dot.etec.wwu.edu/fsae

James Waltman

10-02-2002, 04:23 PM

I think that this thread may have gotten a bit off track. The original post was a request for ways to make the competition more interesting. It now seems to be about to space frame or not to space frame. The way I see it (and my teammates don't all agree with me so I know I many of you won't agree) the point of the competition is to learn. I think this goes even before winning. So I would like to see more innovation than refinement. I would think that a team designing a first generation car (or anything else) would learn more than the next group that just worked out the bugs. I understand that Cornell won with a highly developed space frame this year. They had a great car but I think it would be cool to see how they would do if they threw it all out the window and started from scratch for their next car.

I think driver skill should play as little roll as possible in this competition. I think that many of the team members want jobs in some sort of engineering field and that the competition should help prepare them for that and help them show off those talents. For those who want to be a professional driver there are many, many other venues to pursue that.

I am a little confused by Mr. Nigel Lavers' statement above: "It makes teams focus on the real objective rather than poking around with technology that won't be of any use on a heavy car." You seem to contradict yourself (a typo?) maybe you could clarify. What is the real objective?

Charlie said, "Yes, overall the monocoque chassis might be preferrable, but has one EVER won?" I think that this is the whole point of this thread...

Maybe we could start a new thread with the space frame debate...

For now the thread was:
"A lot of people think its time that the rules are changed to stop the same teams winning by producing a slightly more refined version of the previous years car. What do you guys and girls think?"

James Waltman
http://dot.etec.wwu.edu/fsae/
Vehicle Research Institute at
Western Washington University

Charlie

10-02-2002, 06:10 PM

Yeah, it would be interesting to see how teams react to changes in the rules that basically result in a clean sheet for the next year. It would put everyone on a level playing field. However, I don't think it should happen. I came to an Auburn team that finished 79th in 1999. We've worked our asses off to bring our team to a higher level. The challenge is, you have a playing field that is not level, how do you overcome that, how do you catch up, without having to knock someone down. I enjoy it. I think in the real world, things don't start over very often (they do, but rarely). It is a learning experience, to work with a formula you know is capable of much more than you've been able to accomplish, and bring it to that level and beyond.

Rule changes are an interesting idea, I'd enjoy an additional competition with a slightly different event structure that challenged teams, rather than a rules upheaval.

As far as the chassis, I drool over well built monocoques like OSU and WWU. I would agree that they are fantastic designs. They are capable of winning the event if they had everything else together. But you can argue what's better, but you're given the rules, point structure, and the 'formula', and if you decide to add complexity that you are unable to refine, what good did it do? I am not an engineer yet, but I would guess in the field 'learning experiences' aren't the goal, and I look at FSAE the same way. A competition that you should plan to do your best to win.

-Charlie Ping
Auburn University FSAE 1999-present

James Waltman

10-02-2002, 10:32 PM

Charlie,
Well put. Like I said, I figured that many would not agree with my idea about learning first.

"I am not an engineer yet, but I would guess in the field 'learning experiences' aren't the goal, and I look at FSAE the same way."

"Learning Experiences" may not be the goal in the proffesional field but I figure that since we are all college students and the point of college is to learn...

James Waltman
http://dot.etec.wwu.edu/fsae/
Vehicle Research Institute at
Western Washington University

Nigel Lavers

10-02-2002, 10:38 PM

"It makes teams focus on the real objective rather than poking around with technology that won't be of any use on a heavy car."

As a design leader I am always getting mew team members coming up with wonderful ideas like turbocharging, front and rear wings, diffusers, active suspension, drive by wire, etc. My return comment is: How is that going to help a car that weighs 580lbs? Will it get us into the design finals... nope. Not until we've accomplished the main goal of: lightweight, simple, and reliable. This was how Wollongong did so well as a rookie team... at least in my eyes.

As the car (and the team) develop with the right goal in mind, then more exotic technologies can be added in order to improve the overall vehicle. But until then, let's stick to a simple and reliable space frame that we know will work...

Nigel

Courtney Waters

10-06-2002, 12:22 AM

So, back to the original thread:
"A lot of people think its time that the rules are changed to stop the same teams winning by producing a slightly more refined version of the previous years car. What do you guys and girls think?"

I don't really see a huge problem with the current format. Though it might not be as educational as starting from scratch, there is plenty to be learned from optimizing an existing design. Plenty of engineers, in any field, work on improving existing designs rather than starting from scratch. If I were to change anything, it would be to ensure that every team had an opportunity to compete in every event (if they were ready). For example, if teams were allowed to run in the rain, everyone could have had a chance at the Endurance Event this year.

That said, here are some of my reasons for not agreeing with a rules change:

Look at the results from the '02 comp. Forget about the endurance event and look at how many teams finished all of the other events. I did a quick count and came up with 54 (and our school wasn't one of them either). That's 54 out of 125! Teams shouldn't be worrying about what other teams are doing/designing/building until they can complete every event.

Yes, 50% of the points are "driver's events" (I wouldn't call the accel or fuel economy driver's events), but that still leaves all the other events. Ohio State finished 24th without getting an endurance event score. They made nearly 500 points on all the other events. Compare that with my school (UC Davis) who finished 36th and we DID finish the endurance event. We were finishing the car for tech at the comp so we missed accel and skid pad, and got knocked pretty hard on the static events. We have to work harder at getting the car finished on time so we can spend time prepping for the presentations, and enter all the events!

The top teams didn't win because they had a kick-ass car. Sure, a lot of them were terrific cars, but they also had to do well in all of the static events, had thir car finished on time, and were organized. The other teams need to focus on completing a car, any car, and finishing all the events. It doesn't even matter whether they're running a space frame or carbon monocoque! When every team (ok, maybe 90% of the teams) is finishing all events consistently, THEN a rules change should be addressed if the same teams are winning all the time.

Finally, remember to have FUN, and LEARN!

Courtney Waters
UCD Formula SAE

Jeffrey Pace

10-06-2002, 09:02 PM

In response to the driving in the rain suggestion. I would think that would be an excellent idea, as I have driven FSAE cars in the rain on more than one occasion (not at competition obviously). We tested our car up at Goodyear in Akron and it had rained the night before, so we started on a wet track the next day. We didn't have rain tires at the time so we ran anyway with slicks. You really learn to control the vehicle and be a smoother driver when the coefficients of friction drop off. I would recommend every team put their potential competition drivers in the car in the rain (with rain tires of course). Just make sure you run in a safe area, far away from solid objects.

As for competition, the problem I see with running the cars in the rain would be that rain is rairly a stagnent weather condition. The track can be getting wet, or drying up, and that would effect lap times. It would be difficult for the SCCA to have to factor in some sort of rain hadicap or PAX time adjustment for those that were running in different conditions. Otherwise it would be lots of fun and at it would give everyone an opportunity to compete. I can only imagine the frustration of the teams that didn't get to run endurance this year.

Jeffrey Pace
2000-2002 Virginia Tech FSAE
Chassis-Suspension

pvanvalken

10-08-2002, 08:04 AM

Maybe no one here reads my column in RaceCar Engineering magazine, where I summarized the following suggestions:

EVENT changes suggested by a few Design Event Judges

(None require changes to existing vehicle design rules.)

Goals:
To reduce the advantage of students from schools which have already done most of the research.
To reduce the design convergence due to static rules.

(1) Adding a left-turn only sequence of identical turns and straights.
Justifications:
The vast majority of all racing in the US is left-turn only.
The challenge of optimizing an asymmetrical setup are surprisingly complex.

(2) Aero and rolling drag evaluation:
Justifications:
Great significance to both the racing and passenger car industry.

Technique: coast down after rolling down an inclined ramp (as soapbox derby was)
Possibly into the 45-mph blast from an offset pair of wind machines (NHTSA has)

(3) Final event: tipover onto roll bar, followed by a 5-mph barrier impact .
Justifications:
Great significance to both the racing and passenger car industry.
Test previously assumed impact absorber effectiveness.
Rate repairability after real-world condition.
May help eliminate second-year cars.
Great crowd-pleaser.

Technique: roll down ramp into existing barrier.
Borrow familiar racing impact recorders to illustrate the impact pulse.

(4) Quiz on vehicle design (multiple-choice, computer scored)
Justification: Prepare students for typical challenging judges questions
Prepare judges for the knowledge level of each team.

Richard Lewis

10-08-2002, 10:17 AM

All interesting ideas, but I'd really hate to see the first one done. I realize that setting up a car asymetrically is a whole new ball game, but if your intent is to prepare engineers for industry, (passanger cars) as the majority of your post indicates, then this would be a mistake!

The other problem I see is with the crash testing is simply the added cost of making disposible parts... but that need not be a huge cost if the car is designed for this eventuality.

-------------------------
UVIC Formula SAE Team
http://members.shaw.ca/drax77/UVICFSAEcar.jpg
http://www.engr.uvic.ca/~fsae

Courtney Waters

10-08-2002, 02:28 PM

I'm sure most of us do read your column! I certainly do, and I appreciate the insight and advice you have to give to student engineers.

I think the advantage of student schools who have already done most of the research would be affected somewhat due to such rules changes, however they likely have already established good resources (test equipment, coursework, industry contacts, etc) and would be able to overcome such hurdles more easily than other schools.

(1) I agree that a left-turn event would be an additional challenge but would it would be more useful than the existing events? Maybe I should check out your column again. A lot of the "popular" racing is left-turn only (NASCAR, IRL, etc) but there are so many other series that turn both ways (CART, F1, Trans Am, all of the smaller Formulae, LeMans, SCCA road & rally racing, autocrossing) that I would hesitate to say that the majority is left-turn only. If it were in addition to the existing endurance & autox events, that would indeed make the competition more complex, and challenging for the teams.

(2) Aero and rolling drag evaluation would be an interesting addition, I think. Any ideas on how it could be evaluated? The cars running wings could potentially have more drag, but if they gain a significant amount of downforce it might be worth the trade-off. Would that factor into the scoring equation? Would the cars be evaluated in "as raced" condition, or would suspension settings (toe, camber, tire pressure) be adjusted for best performance in that event?

(3) As a student member of a FSAE team, I would not want to see any destructive testing done on the cars. We put so much time into them, and often times on _very_ limited budgets, that crashing the car would not be a pleasant way to end the competition. How would the tip-over onto roll bar be done? Would the 5-mph barrier impact be done head-on, or at an angle? Some method of testing the front impact absorber would be good (some previous designs have definitely been questionable), but if done while mounted on the vehicle would at least foul the bodywork. Sure would be a crowd-pleaser though! Well, not for the team being tested...

(4) Who takes the vehicle design quiz? The whole team or just those presenting during the Design Event?

Thanks for the input!

Courtney Waters
UCD Formula SAE

Courtney Waters
UCD Formula SAE

Charlie

10-08-2002, 11:26 PM

We've had several of Mr. Valkenburgh's columns in our shop.

I like the circle track idea if it is in conjuction with a normal autocross event. This would involve a design that can incorporate both possible chassis setups, and involve more alternatives. CART does it, why can't we.

Destructive testing just can't happen. For the reasons above, plus the fact that we used our 2002 car for so much testing mule & datalogging work. It just is a very disheartening idea.

-Charlie Ping
Auburn University FSAE 1999-present

Lyn Labahn UW-Madison

11-04-2002, 02:32 AM

In my opinion what it all comes down to is how much man power each team has. We have a medium-large sized team, and we pull plenty of all nighters to get the car ready for competition. If you had to re-invent the wheel every year I seriously doubt many teams would be able to field a car every year, and/or the quality of the cars would seriously suffer. I think it would severly handicap the smaller teams. You can learn a great deal by taking a previous years design and improving it to perform better. At least it this competition, I believe it is best to evolutionize, not revolutionize your car!

As it stands right now, I think the points are distributed well. Just because it isn't best to have all the whiz-bang gadgets on your car doesn't mean that it is any less of an engineering competiton. Racing is a great way to hammer our the fundamentals of what engineers do. What good is a design if it makes the car slower on the track? A good engineer will produce a design that functional before taking into account the oooooh ahhhh factor. The dynamic events really give everyone a chance to "put their education where their mouth is" so to speak. If you are hard core into the design aspect of things, there are other SAE competitions which are much more focused in that area.

None the less I do ecourage teams with the availible resources to experiment with new ideas. We had great success implementing our fully electronic throttle, that is until they banned it. It did provide some nice benefits that we will keep to ourselves, but had we not had it last year, I am sure we would have still placed near the top. We experimented with hydraulic shifting but ultimately canned it after many man hours were dumped into it. But as they say, that is how the cookie crumbles.

I don't see how crashing the cars would really be in the spirit of the competition. No other form of racing requires teams to crush their vehicles to prove their are safety worthy, why would FSAE?

As for an event where all you do is turn left, all I can say is that I have visions of trailer parks, mullets and Busch Light dancing in my head. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

2002/2003 Team Leader

K Thomas

11-04-2002, 07:24 AM

Erg, drive fast turn left? I don't like it. It would be restricted to speeds of 25 mph in an oval anyway. And yes, NASCAR is the most popular motorsport in America, so it would sort of make sense to have a left-turning event.

On second thought, that would mean throwing away our fuel injection setups for archaic carbs, and increasing the amount of advertising space on our cars.

/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

University of Louisville FSAE - Engine Team
Note: you may include UBBCode™, UBBCode™ Images and HTML in your signature.
University of Louisville FSAE (http://louisville.edu/speed/rso/sae/fsae/)

<<< why doesn't that work!? -It works now /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif -Admin

[This message was edited by Admin on November 04, 2002 at 10:51 AM.]

[This message was edited by Admin on November 04, 2002 at 10:52 AM.]

EliseS2

11-05-2002, 12:18 PM

I have read every one of Mr. Valkenburgh's articles I can. Partly because he does give great insights on how to do well, now I just need to convince my team to follow his plans. Also it is great to read how the one of judges judges the cars. I like the aero drag evaluation. The crash test is interesting, but I would like to make sure I had a another car to test, before sacraficing a car. One school in texas (forgot which one has every car they ever made still around (over 12 cars) and most of them are running. We just finished our running car (we havent had one in two years and even that one was horrible) now we can finally test the car.

Alan Gruner

11-06-2002, 08:31 AM

After reading this whole thread I'll offer my own take on the situation.

I believe the single greatest source of competitive advantage in FSAE is the faculty advisor. Cornell and UTA have the level of success because of the commitment and coaching talents of Al George and Bob Woods.

If rules changes are being undertaken to try to bring new teams into the top 10, everyone is going to be disappointed. The consistent front runners will adapt and be back at the front. This would be a waste of time and resources.

If rules changes are being considered to enhance the education value of the competition, then I could get behind it. My question would be what do we want students to learn from new requirements?

FSAE alumni
Non-professional weekend autocrosser

Jeff Curtis

11-06-2002, 12:02 PM

Rule changes will have little effect on what type of teams are competitive. Alan is exactly right, the best teams are the best because their Advisers, leaders, organizational structure and ability to understand the competition as a system, not just as designing a car go fast (although that is one of the goals of the system).

The biggest strides Cornell has made in the past two to three years are in taking more of organizational systems engineering aproach to the competition. It has worked wonders in getting our cars finished early to be tested and ready for competition. As well as insuring an optimal design for all phases of the competition.

I now have a job in professional motorsports and I see no difference. The reason why Joe Gibbs Racing, Roush Racing, and Hendrick Motorsports are up front is becuase they have a committed owner, good management and a good organizatial structure. Fast cars come easy when those things are in place.

Jeff

Charlie

11-06-2002, 06:08 PM

I agree to a point. However there is a definite advantage to those teams that have been around for a few years with a top car. For example, Cornell has a terrific powertrain design. They've been able to create a turbo car that is very reliable, makes lots of power, and is very drivable. I don't think any other team has done that yet. Every year they seem to make a little more power. Their goals for powertrain are simply to refine it and make a bit more power. They have prior year's reports and data to look back on. It's a lot easier for them than a team struggling to get thier first drivable engine setup.

Don't get me wrong, I would bet that the same teams would be competitive again too. I also don't think the rules should change, as there is a great challenge in trying to catch & pass more experienced teams.

We have made huge strides the last couple years here at Auburn. I don't think these top teams are un-stoppable. Let the best team win /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

-Charlie Ping
Auburn University FSAE 1999-present

Travis R

11-14-2002, 11:08 AM

Here's how I see it. The point of the competition is to build a RACE car... not a show car. So I think it would be fun to put the design event AFTER all the dynamic events. If your car doesn't finish the enduro, you don't get into the design semi-finals. That would get rid of all the cars that show up with crowd (judge) pleasing amenities. "Wow, nice feature... to bad it doesn't work!" Look at F1 (or virtually any race series for that matter), do you think anything goes on the cars to impress people? No, it goes on because it will help the team win races.
That's also why the cars are/should be built in a steady evolution, it wins races. The biggest challenge for a new/small team is to get to a point where the cars can be built like this. Every modern industry was built standing on the shoulders of the previous generation. Where do you think modern medicine would be if it had to start over every couple years? We'd still have a life expectancy of 40 years. Then how would your faculty advisor help you build your race car? He'd probably be dead! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Travis Rouse - Test Pilot - The University of Texas (Austin)
http://www.ls1power.net/RX7/autox4_slide.jpg

Michael Jones

11-18-2002, 07:30 AM

...agree with Jeff Curtis' earlier comments on organization and systems principles...have certainly talked an earful about these ideas with him in the past, good to see he's still alive.

Of course, I'm biased, given that I'm writing my dissertation in organizational communication based on my research with the team. I've counseled four generations of student leaders on the subject now. :-)

Having an advisor like Al George helps a great deal - he's one of the wisest people I know. And a great part of his wisdom comes from non-interference. It's assumed by some that the advisor is pulling the strings behind the scenes of successful teams. Nothing is further from the truth here - Al George constistently cuts people enough slack to hang themselves on their own ill-conceived ideas. He'll ask tough questions - much like the design judges do - and after not answering them right long enough, you'll discover the error of your ways sure enough. Or, better yet, you'll answer them all right and blow the design judges away.

Systems approaches are important. In my research, I'm finding that schools that have systems programs or tracks within their mechanical programs are consistently strong contenders, whereas traditional ME programs are less so.

Attending to the full system gives you a solid technical product that meets the goals of the competition. My suspicion is that too many cars are hijacked by the demands of one cool project and neglect the rest -- WWU's V-8 being the most glaring example of it. A work of art in every respect, but alas it did not run. More often, teams make other oversights, such as attempting to maximize power over everything else, or focusing too hard on dynamic events and ignoring static events completely. As a previous post noted, OSU finished 23rd and beat a handy number of teams that did finish endurance - Wollongong, UTA and Toronto finished top 30 without finishing endurance too. Cornell finished 13th in 2000 doing the same, but that was a freaky year. Everyone died then.

Diversity of talent is important too. Cornell's team is a rather eclectic group. Predominately MechEs yes, but a healthy number of EEs, a few other specialities in engineering, and a few arts folks thrown in for good measure. And "...some drunk Canadian communication graduate student" as I'm affectionately known. The non-engineers come in handy, BTW. I've learned an insane amount here to the point that I have contributed to design and manufacturing. My scholastic training is best suited for crafting large quantities of finely constructed BS, but hey, that comes in handy for sponsorship, PR, cost report, business presentation, ruminating about organizational development issues, and all the other stuff that makes hardcore engineers cringe.

History is important, yes, and our history is admittedly pretty solid. Best overall ranking in the last five and ten year period, second only to UW-Madison in the last three, based on our finishing 13th that one time. But history is only good if you learn from it. My dissertation is mostly about knowledge management and organizational learning strategies - learning from history if you will. It's not done as elegantly as it could be, and there are many avenues for improvement still, but the fact that this is a question in the minds of the student leaders and coordinators here is key.

As for rule changes, left turns are the devil's work, the design process is about 100 times more intellectually challenging than a quiz, the aero ideas are interesting theoretically but should also show that aerodynamics play little role given the speed these cars go in practice and crashing these cars - well, I'm not driving it into the wall. You go right ahead. I like my feet where they are right now, thanks.

Alan Gruner

11-18-2002, 09:42 AM

Michael,

Are/were you the ILR student on team? I read somewhere that there was one on the Cornell team in 2002.

FSAE alumni
Non-professional weekend autocrosser

James Waltman

11-18-2002, 10:43 AM

I said it before in this thread but the comments by Travis R and Michael Jones bring it back up.

The way I see it, the point of the competition is to learn. The goal is to build a racecar and win. Any team that even attempts to build a car is guaranteed to learn and that is the key. As long as you are learning.

I think that there are advantages to refinement and it is a valid approach to engineering. The modern medicine refinement argument neglects the revolutions that took place. Refinement made better X-rays but did not give us the MRI. That came from thinking differently and trying new things. Not everyone can refine, some must be tying new things. That's how every modern industry works.

"That's also why the cars are/should be built in a steady evolution, it wins races."
I think that steady evolution in racing wins races because the rules are so restricting that it is the only way to get an advantage. Every major series has such tight rules that it discourages innovation. Every time someone finds a loophole in the rules and makes an innovation the rules quickly close that up.

FSAE rule #1.1
...The restrictions on the car frame and engine are limited so that the knowledge, creativity, and imagination of the students are challenged....
Why doesn't it say refinement here?

Our V8 car certainly has some drawbacks - what the students learned while making it is certainly not one of them. To defend our V8 car (again): I don't think much was neglected on that car. I know that it didn't fully compete but if you look at it you will see how much attention was paid to all aspects of that car. It simply suffered from lack of time to get the bugs worked out of a very complicated project.

Check out our website to see some pictures of what I mean. Viking XXX was our V8 car. We have recently made big changes to our website and it includes some good pictures. http://dot.etec.wwu.edu/fsae/

James Waltman
waltmaj@cc.wwu.edu
Formula SAE
Vehicle Research Institute at
Western Washington University

David Money

11-18-2002, 02:51 PM

Out of curiosity, what was the total weight on XXX? Also, how much did the engine and tranny assy weigh? I must say, it was an absolutely beautiful car. I would have LOVED to see it run at the competition. I am very sorry that it never got the opportunity.

David Money

11-18-2002, 03:38 PM

I highly agree with the fact that if a car cannot be driven it should not be judged. I think that saying that if they can't pass enduro they shouldn't be judged might be a litle too harsh. What if you're like 1/2 the teams from last year that got rained out of enduro? I think that if you don't pass tech you shouldn't be judged. I think that after listening to Carroll Smith's speech at the competition would he would agree from a judging standpoint (not enough time to judge the whole field of cars).

I would have to request a change to the cost report portion of the event. I don't really understand how a summation of expenses and copies of receipts can add up to 30 pages as some teams have produced. When we did our cost report we ended up with two 1.5" thick notebooks. I was told by a FSAE consultant for our team that we should've disposed of about 1/2 of the items in our notebooks so as to be more on par with our competitors. What?? The whole cost report issue just bugs me. I think that it really needs to be changed but I just don't knoe how to change it. Any ideas on this?

James Waltman

11-18-2002, 06:20 PM

David,
The car weighed 426 pounds at competition in 2001. The engine and transaxle weigh just a bit more than a standard Honda CBR but the weight disadvantage is made up by the fact that they are a fully stressed part of the chassis. There is no frame of any kind around them so in that sense the package is lighter overall.

James Waltman
waltmaj@cc.wwu.edu
Formula SAE
Vehicle Research Institute at
Western Washington University

Michael Jones

11-18-2002, 07:12 PM

Alan - nope, not the ILR (industrial/labor relations) student. That would be Diane Horey - a good example of what bringing in other skills can do. The administrative side of the organization was a machine - much tighter that even before.

James - Innovation is important, I'd have to agree. But revolutionary changes are insanely difficult to pull off, especially in such a short time frame with student labor and resources. I agree that the WWU XXX was much more than an engine - it was a fascinating car all around, and completely deserved a place in final design even if it did not run. Innovativeness is of course a component of design (10% of the design score) and arguably could be more, but then you'd have to raid some other category I guess.

Innovation is cool but in the end, there has to be a return on investment of time and resources. If your organization could spend 1000 man-hours to squeeze out an extra two points in design and a dynamic event, it is a fair question to ask whether that time is well spent, even if the end product is cool. It may be - depends on the context. But if that 1000 hours means that the cost report is done in 5 hours flat, the net effect is almost guaranteed to be negative.

As for cost, ours is a 3" binder filled with everything. They liked it fine, but I agree it's a pain. The biggest change there I'd like to see is eliminate the arbitrary 10 page limit on sections. We spent way too much time trying to get Access to format stuff properly and still couldn't shoehorn the 40-item engine and drivetrain section into 10 pages. We can argue to what extent the competition should be about innovation, but I think we can agree that the last thing it's about is excellence in desktop publishing...

James Waltman

11-19-2002, 09:00 AM

Michael,
I completely agree that the time put into something complex may not be justified by the points gained. That is something that we are very conscious of. Like I said above, I think that the point of the competition is to learn - learning is a profit that must be considered in addition to the points. Of course we want to score points and place well but if we have a chance to learn something or try something different we are likely to give it a try.

James Waltman
waltmaj@cc.wwu.edu
Formula SAE
Vehicle Research Institute at
Western Washington University

silvr911t

11-26-2002, 08:57 AM

I think the rules should not demand a 4-stroke piston style engine. As a powertrain team member i would love to research different engine design and implement a unique design instead of buying a bike engine. My true intent would be to make a rotary, while this effectively gets an advantage, i think there should be a displacement or weight restriction to compensate for the improvement. It would not be that difficult (in theory) and it would add to some engineering fun. What do you guys think?

Charlie

11-26-2002, 01:05 PM

I like the idea, it would bring more diverseness to the field and more knowledge gained by the students.

However, I highly doubt that happening because

1. How would SAE level the plying fields? If they didn't and the rotory was the best choice, then it'd be a rotary competition

2. The Big 3 don't want the biggest engineering design competition to focus on anything but 4 stroke piston engines because that's what they do.

-Charlie Ping
Auburn University FSAE 1999-present

Dick Golembiewski

11-26-2002, 02:31 PM

Rotaries were actually allowed for many years. The formula used was to double the swept volume to give the equivalent reciprocating volume. prior to the 1985 competition, displacement was open. The Sachs rotary was popular. My first year as a faculty advisor (1984) we ran a 600cc (1200 cc equivalent) OMC rotary. The following year, the 600 cc displacement limit was initiated, and my students fitted a smaller Sachs rotary.

They weren't banned until somewhere in the 1986-89 time frame. I don't rememeber the exact year. Things were run a bit more loosely in those days, as we didn't put the rules committee together formally until 1988. I believe that this change and others were the result of an informal poll. Some folks (This was prior to the consortium.) didn't like rotaries, and wanted to limit things to reciprocating engines.

This is just a history lesson. As a former chair of the SAE Competitions Committee, I will not get into a debate here, or second-guess the FSAE rules committee. I would suggest that if you want to see a change, you build a strong case and present it.

- Dick

Michael Jones

11-26-2002, 04:22 PM

Apart from standardization, safety is a concern, as suggested in the rules clarification on the main SAE page. With a total free-for-all on engine choice and modifications, some really sketchy things will happen. And the safety standards are high, especially with 140 schools and little time to adequate check designs, etc.

Same rationale for banning electronic throttle really - nice innovation, but they couldn't even handle safety report submissions from a handful of schools who tried. So, regrettably, it's easier to level the playing field by banning it outright. Not better, perhaps, but given the organization's limited resources and volunteer staff, perfectly understandable.

Charlie

11-26-2002, 06:53 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Michael Jones:
safety is a concern, With a total free-for-all on engine choice and modifications, some really sketchy things will happen. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How so? Isn't there already a total free-for-all on engine modification? Would rotaries cause a saftey concern? I don't see how. Unless you are implying that the restrictor & cc limit would be eliminated as well...

-Charlie Ping
Auburn University FSAE 1999-present

Michael Jones

11-27-2002, 03:14 AM

From the first rules clarification posted in the year:
***
The vast majority of FSAE rules are safety related. Hence, if we allow any alternative type of engine, the safety implications would have to be fully evaluated and the rules adjusted.
***

You're right of course that a rotary engine or any other type of engine isn't necessarily more or less safe. But a variety of engines just adds to the complexity of the situation - so many more things can go wrong when you're dealing with a limitless variety of alternative types and makes of engines.

That, and it's safe to assume that motorcycle engines have been kicked around by more than just us, and thus have a broader safety track record. Broadening the definition will introduce a range of freakish engines, many of which will not have seen such real world use.

As for internal modifications, I think the limiting factor that constrains safety is that it takes a good long while to do right in the first place. Or money for high-quality aftermarket parts. Doable but with some preparation and resources, financial and technical.

Other modifications to engine related accessories are of course already banned.

But even with all that, there's room for innovation I think. WWU certainly proved that two years ago at least - they didn't go and ban home-built V8 engines, after all.

MikeWaggoner at UW

11-27-2002, 02:11 PM

Why is everyone saying rotaries would be an advantage? I'm not aware of a small enough rotor, so a team would have to build their own (which is a huge disadvantage), and the lower thermal efficiency of a rotary means that if you're pulling through a restrictor, you'll get less power.

Also, on the original post about rotaries...
Quote: "My true intent would be to make a rotary"
Do you mean lopping another rotary in half, build your own from scratch, or buy one and build a car around it?

Western Washington University FSAE
dot.etec.wwu.edu/fsae

James Waltman

11-27-2002, 02:21 PM

Quote: "Other modifications to engine related accessories are of course already banned."
-Michael Jones

What do you mean? I can't seem to find any such rules. Please let me know what I am missing.

For the alternative engines argument:
There are still a lot of things that you can do that are pretty far out there and stay within the current rules. silvr911t, what part would not be so difficult (in theory). If you want to challenge yourself and add some engineering fun you don't need a rotary. Design your own engine. I know that there is another school (not us) that is trying to design their own engine right now. I am not sure if they want to go public with it yet so I'll keep the name to myself.

Weight restrictions – BAD!!!

James Waltman
waltmaj@cc.wwu.edu
Formula SAE
Vehicle Research Institute at
Western Washington University

Mr2fastna

11-28-2002, 03:39 PM

For Mike Waggoner, UAV makes a 208cc rotor that makes 67bhp and weights 24 pounds. Sounds like fun to me. Just some food for thought

Michael Jones

11-28-2002, 06:14 PM

Quote: "Other modifications to engine related accessories are of course already banned."
-Michael Jones

What do you mean? I can't seem to find any such rules. Please let me know what I am missing.

***

Was more referring to various powertrain restrictions...e.g., water cooling, changing fuel temp, fuel additives, ambient air intercooling, and any other quick trick that can be jammed in that would violate the spirit of the law (the catchall rule 5.9.2)...along with the obvious displacement and air intake laws.

Internal mods are allowed within the spirit of these laws, but believe that the main restriction on such mods are pragmatic -- usually way too much time or money for little appreciable on-track gain and some - but not an overwhelming amonunt - of design points.

Richard Lewis

11-29-2002, 12:43 AM

Well there was at least 1 air cooled engine in Detroit in 2002, and they passed tech. (or were at least lined up for the autocross)

-------------------------
UVIC Formula SAE Team
http://members.shaw.ca/drax77/UVICFSAEcar.jpg
http://fsae.uvic.ca

MikeWaggoner at UW

12-03-2002, 09:51 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Mr2fastna:
For Mike Waggoner, UAV makes a 208cc rotor that makes 67bhp and weights 24 pounds. Sounds like fun to me. Just some food for thought<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The lower weight would be an advantage, however I think the lower thermal efficiency (especially for that small a rotor) would really start to bite you in the butt (since power is limited by airflow, and you're wasting more of it). Hondo's 400cc one-lunger weighs 64 lbs and produces similar power, I think.

Western Washington University FSAE
dot.etec.wwu.edu/fsae

Mr2fastna

12-03-2002, 11:53 PM

Like I said it was just an idea, but I agree with you on the efficency of a small rotor. It depends on how they limited the displacement, if you could run two it might be a fun way to go. And on that note I've always thought that the sae should do away with the restrictors but I understand why they dont, but hey I'm pushing for a real road course event too.....

sticks

12-10-2002, 11:08 PM

Rules changes? I only see moderate problems with the standing rules. 1) The current bias against composite safety structures. However, do the highly variable nature of the materials and construction method, this can be readily understood. 2) The use of an air restrictor to control engine output. I think the use of an standardized RPM limiter would be of greater educational experience given the typical operating range of the current automotive market. Typically, I would assume resistance as no one is inclined to integrate standardized equipment in original design if not necessary. However it may provide a wider scope of engine modification in regard to power curve tuning and the like. 3) The limitation of the rear wing to the rear line of the rear wheels. This provides a natural imbalance and limited downforce due to the greater efficiency of the front wing in ground effect. Without a lever arm past the rear wheel axis the effective rear downforce is merely the absolute downforce generated by the wing; rather then a lever arm plus the added benefits of ground effect enjoyed by the front wing. Thus, either the front wing downforce is limited or rear wing drag is greatly increased to compensate. I'm sure the idea behind the rule is safety rather than intentional limitation, but with the overabundant (and rightly so) use of endplates I don't foresee a great safety hazard due to extended appendages.
Granted, these are just my modest opinions, and if I am missing something significant, please feel free to correct me.

Scott Wordley

01-06-2003, 04:39 PM

Nobody here seems to have mentioned the new rule change which is highly rumored to be introduced in the next 2 years. This is the rule that drivers feet may not extend past the front axle line. Apparently a decision is going to be made regarding this rule change very soon.

This would obvioulsy have a huge impact on the short wheelbase necessary for the tight circuits encountered in FSAE. What are everyone's thoughts on this and has anyone already started designing around this rule?

Regards,

Scott "Maverick" Wordley &
Roan "Goose" Lyddy-Meaney
MOnash FSAE Wingmen

Charlie

01-06-2003, 06:42 PM

Where did you hear this rumour? I haven't heard that one yet. But like all rumours, I'm not going to worry about designing one until it's a fact. I mean, rumours about oval tracks and crash testing have come straight from some of the judges mouths but we haven't tested either yet.

-Charlie Ping
Auburn University FSAE 1999-present
http://www.auburn.edu/~pingiii/2002FSAE/carblank.jpg

Scott Wordley

01-07-2003, 04:24 AM

This rumour came from the man himself, Carroll Smith.

Regards,

Scott "Maverick" Wordley &
Roan "Goose" Lyddy-Meaney
MOnash FSAE Wingmen

Dominic Venieri

01-07-2003, 07:50 AM

Did he give a reason as to why? It sounds safety related.

I remember when he told me last year to plan for wet weather running in MI this year so the event could go on with so many cars in shit weather.

It's not such a bad idea really. Our 99 car crashed into a tall curb and really mangled the front of the car, where the drivers legs and feet were. He was fine, but if he was further back, the front suspension and bulkhead would have taken more of the impact away from his legs.

For our car now at least, such a change would mean moving the drivers feet back about 8". That would pretty much turn into 8" more wheelbase. So you have to wonder if they are going to open up the course designs to accomodate what would be bigger cars. Our car is one of the biggest out there right now, and we just make it through the autox.

www.formularpi.com (http://www.formularpi.com)

Scott Wordley

01-07-2003, 07:15 PM

He mentioned it when he was talking to the University of Sydney team at the end of the competition but unfortunately I didn't catch the whole conversation. The way he was talking it sounded like the rule change was definately going ahead but apparently the rules committee were going to make a decision some time after christmas.

I doubt that safety would be the main influencing factor because the way the competition is structured the level of safey is already very high. My guess is that its just to shake things up a bit and I think this is a great idea. It means that the teams that are willing to try out new ideas will be at an advantage whilst everyone else plays catch up.

Regards,

Scott "Maverick" Wordley &
Roan "Goose" Lyddy-Meaney
MOnash FSAE Wingmen

Argus Tuft

01-07-2003, 09:45 PM

Remember that old joke where the punch line was "Send up three and fourpence, we're going to a dance" ?
A little information is a dangerous thing.

The rules committee will soon discuss a suggestion that the drivers feet are vulnerable and the rules should be changed to overcome this. Allan Staniforth made a great fuss about this in his RaceTech article last year, where a picture was shown of the Georgia Tech car, where the drivers legs were supposed to be vulnerable.
Another mover in this debate is that in the UK, if these cars are to be used in mainstream motorsport (Hillclimbs and such) then the drivers feet need to be behing the front wheel line.

A couple of issues here. The IMechE people are far from cooperative with the SAE people, and I cannot see a change being made to accommodate a couple of Brit teams that might want to drive up Shelsley Walsh occasionally.

There are those in the rules committee who believe that FSAE cars are just that FSAE cars (read the intent part of the rules) and were never intended to be circuit racing or hillclimb cars, where there is the opportunity to try move a real tree with one, rather than a pretend (cone) tree.

Anyway, the change to the rules has not been debated by the rules committee yet, so anything you hear is just that..hearsay.

The other rumour going around is a change to mandate open diffs ! That would get your attention.

Argus

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy !

sticks

01-09-2003, 01:03 PM

If the wheelbase (footwell/axel-line) extention rule were to be introduced, I think it would be a boon for this series, as it would allow a greater latitude in frontal design, aero packaging, and possibilty less restrictor due to added weight of the package. It might also make a substantial argument for moving the event to an honest race track of some sort (possibly a small road course or even a larger kart arena?). It would be about time that the variables were changed and new solutions emerged. I can think of a hundred possible ways to take advantage of the increased volume and correlating surface area. However, if the course remained unchanged and the rule implimented, I would have to be greatly disappointed with the organizers forethought. On a secondary note, why shouldn't the cars we design and build be eligible for some outside competition. Is it truly satisfactory to spend a year building them and roughly the equivilent of a week (FSAE, Formula Student, Formula Austrasia) competing with them? I have read where there has been outside interest from racers looking for a series that already has infustructure and utilizing past fsae cars. Naturally, many will not wish to part with their hard work, however, for smaller teams in greater need of funding than a stationary trophy, it could be a source of relavent funding to keep the effort going. These are just my opinions, but it does seem like, with the addition of a few other considerations, this rule change could be a significant step toward professional racing considerations (and thus the experience gained from it).

Frank

01-30-2003, 02:17 PM

It took us 2 years to understand the rules..
Now you wanna change 'em?

Mechanicaldan

02-11-2003, 10:07 PM

So, people want to see more innovation? The discussion seems to be that all the top, established teams keep refining the same chassis/engine configuration, and because of this any new teams will have to go through the same long process to get to the top.

How about 2 car classes focusing on the engines used? I've thought long and hard, and did quite a bit on initial research on using a single cylinder engine in a barely rules legal, superkart style chassis. The KTM 620 engines (actually displacing 608cc) make about 50 HP stock and 30-35 ft-lbs of torque. Well, to be competitive with the power of the 4 cylinder cars, this superkart chassis would have to weigh about 320 lbs for the same power to weight ratio. That just seems really difficult.

So, how about putting all the liquid cooled, inline 4 cylinder engined cars their own class, and make a seperate class that would allow 1,2 & 3 cylinder engines, in liquid cooled and air cooled configurations?

This would indeed make competition more interesting! Innovation? Yes, there will be lots. Variety. Check! Let the top 10 teams keep refining their well established cars, let others be creative and innovative!

Cyclone Racing
Iowa State University
Engine Team Leader