+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 38

Thread: 2014 FSAE rules have been posted

  1. #1

    2014 FSAE rules have been posted

    Hey Everyone,
    just wanted to let you know that the 2014 FSAE rules have been posted:
    http://students.sae.org/competitions...fsae_rules.pdf

    I will provide a changelog for the EV part soon.
    Regards,

    Tobias

    Formula Student Germany
    FSE Rules & Organisation
    http://twitter.com/TobiasMic
    http://TobiasMic.Blogspot.com

    Not many people know the difference between resolution and accuracy.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    231
    Since this is an even year and there are no big changes here is list of possible future changes for 2015 listed in the rules.
    (I bolded the ones I'm excited about)

    Restriction on Professional Drivers – The Committee is considering prohibiting individuals who have driven
    for professionally funded teams from driving in FSAE dynamic events.

    5th Percentile Female Driver – The committee is considering changes to the rules to make it clearer that the
    driver cell should be able to fit both a 95the percentile male and a 5th percentile female driver.

    Chassis – The committee is considering defining the main hoop bracing requirements more precisely for
    equivalency purposes. This is most likely to affect teams with monocoque chassis that use very short main hoop
    braces.

    Aerodynamics 1 – The committee is considering a change to the principle of the aerodynamic regulations
    whereby they require the teams to think very carefully about the aero package that they choose. The proposal is
    to achieve this by developing 3 sets of aerodynamic regulations and rotating the regulations every 2 years
    creating a 6 year cycle. This will ensure that most team members will only work with a specific set of
    aerodynamic regulations for a maximum of 2 years and each team will have to develop their aero package from
    first principles. The intention is to bring addition challenge to the competition for every student that takes part.
    Feedback from teams on this proposal is welcomed.


    Aerodynamics 2 – The committee is considering adding wing supports to the SES to ensure that they have
    adequate strength

    Drive by Wire Throttle – The Committee is considering that drive by wire throttles can be used on Formula
    SAE cars if they include a form of the brake plausibility device which is currently required for EVs. Feedback
    on this topic and whether you would like to adopt a throttle by wire throttle would be appreciated.

    Noise Test – To improve the sound quality of single cylinder engines for track workers the sound measuring
    units may be changed to dBC. This is more consistent with human hearing at the higher volumes called out in
    the rules. Cheap, commercially available sound meters are generally able to display dBC. The committee is
    also considering a reduction in the noise level.

    Throttle Body – The committee is considering changing the position of the throttle body to place it downstream
    of the compressor on turbocharged and centrifugally supercharged engines. The restrictor would remain
    upstream from the compressor. Naturally aspirated engines would not be impacted by the change.


    Design Event – The committee is considering including the objective of value in the design event objectives.
    This is to make it clear to all participants that a cost effective car which is well executed should be able to score
    well in the design event. This will result in the design event being judged on the three main objectives of:
    Design for Performance, Design for Value and the knowledge of the team members.
    The committee hopes that
    this will change the perception of the design event so that it is clear that a large budget is not a prerequisite to
    winning the design event.

    Cost Event – The committee is considering a major revamp of the cost event such that it addresses product /
    component engineering issues including design for cost, design for manufacturing, design for sustainability and
    the life cycle of the product. Students will be expected to have an appreciation of all areas of relating to product
    / component engineering which will be important in their engineering careers. The committee would appreciate
    feedback and proposals on how the cost event might be changed to improve its value to the students as part of
    this revamp.


    EVs: For EVs the committee is considering the following regulations changes:
    - standardize the voltage limit for all events
    - treat LiFePO4 cells the same as Li-Ion cells
    - specify a standard HVD
    - change the maximum power available for 4WD to bring performance in line with 2WD EVs / ICs

    Efficiency – The efficiency event is being reviewed to determine whether the influence of lap time on the
    efficiency score is in line with the intent of the rule.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Costa Mesa, CA
    Posts
    773
    Don't get too excited about the throttle body one. I submitted a detailed proposal in 2005 with all sorts of rational justification. The arguments I heard back were somewhat non-rational. There are some old-guard advisers to the rules committee that don't like change, even if the change would create positive outcomes with negligible, if any, negative outcomes. If you dig through this forum, there are a few in depth discussions about the proposal. The power outputs wouldn't change, but it would make forced induction a lot more accessible to teams. Given that turbocharging is gaining momentum a standard method of efficiency improvement and emissions control in production vehicles, I don't see why the rules committee doesn't make it a more viable option within the rules. :/ I used to get pretty worked up over this, but in time I've just lost hope that they'll change it (despite it showing up most years in the "changes under consideration" section).

    If anyone is interested in reading the original proposal, feel free to PM me with your email address and I can send it to you.

    -Kirk
    Last edited by Kirk Feldkamp; 08-29-2013 at 06:08 PM.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Kannapolis, NC
    Posts
    382
    I'm hoping that the ETC one goes through. The brake pedal plausicheck is far better than all of the things that they tried to do last year with the panic engine kill and what not. Also, you know, it is how the electric cars and how most production cars work (at least after the Unintended Acceleration debacle). Having been on a group that implemented ETC on a snowmobile, its not that hard to implement and can add a LOT to the engine tuning and control aspect of the competition.

    I am also in favor of the rolling aero rules changes. Being really one of the "big ticket" items that can make you a lot faster if done right. However, if you are building a 'legacy' car with wings, are you really learning how to design it? Essentially forcing people to have to learn is never a bad thing IMO. Not sure what the 3 sets of regs are, however (Different package sizes? Not allowing wings one year? Only undertrays? Sliding skirts?)
    Any views or opinions expressed by me may in no way reflect those of Stewart-Haas Racing, Kettering University, or their employees, students, administrators or sponsors.

  5. #5
    I like the review of the efficiency event. With the current rules it is harder to use the efficiency score to compensate for lower speed (e.g. use a 250 cc engine and be very lightweight) as you can still win the event but not compensate enough overall. If this is the intent of the rule I do not know, but it was even possible with only 50 points for 'fuel efficiency', 'back in the days'.
    Tristan
    Delft '09 Team member, '10 - Chief Electronics
    'now' (Hardware) Security Engineer

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Stuttgart
    Posts
    150
    I like the way the Efficiency score is calculated at the moment. Its something you have to work on if you want to win, but its not the game changer that forces you to run a 1 cylinder. And that is the way it should be, as this is not some eco marathon. A 250cc engine can hardly be competitive. You will have a lot less power compared to a 450cc, yet your car weight cant be reduced significantly...

    I am very much looking forward to the drive by wire throttle control, because it allows a lot of options to dethrottle the engine and increase efficiency.

    dBc for Noisetest is also long overdue. I dont understand though, why they additionally consider reducing the noise level.

  7. #7
    Good to see they're still considering the "best design for a price" change. That'll probably be the biggest change to the competition in years, and that they finally made an official decision on changing tires if you get a flat (why did that take so long again...?)

    But why in the world are massive wing mounts sending bending moments and aero loads through the roll hoop bracing still legal?
    Last edited by Canuck Racing; 08-30-2013 at 07:37 AM.

  8. #8
    As far as the cost report goes, I'd like to see actual reporting, not some "invented" number. Actual invoices for purchased parts, if supplied parts are donated, then the claimed tax-deduction from the donating sponsor, and finally, if the parts are carried over from a previous year, then the MSRP for a new part.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Stuttgart
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by BluSTi View Post
    As far as the cost report goes, I'd like to see actual reporting, not some "invented" number. Actual invoices for purchased parts, if supplied parts are donated, then the claimed tax-deduction from the donating sponsor, and finally, if the parts are carried over from a previous year, then the MSRP for a new part.
    It would be nice to have the real price of the cars, but it will never happen. What about self machined parts? There are no invoices for that. And furthermore invoices can be "tweaked" too easily to take them serious.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by RenM View Post
    It would be nice to have the real price of the cars, but it will never happen. What about self machined parts? There are no invoices for that. And furthermore invoices can be "tweaked" too easily to take them serious.
    Actually, this works out. For the self-machined parts you'd have an invoice for the raw materials and the processing cost could be discounted/ignored if done in-house. This is good because it "incentivizes" teams to produce their own parts. If the part was machined by a sponsor, then there would be an invoice for the machine time, which could be costed at some standard rate, maybe $75/hr.

    As far as doctoring invoices, I reckon that falls under the guise of cheating, and maybe some unscrupulous teams would do it. However, after comparing lots of team's cost reports I would think that doctored invoices would start to become apparent.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts