+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38

Thread: 2014 FSAE rules have been posted

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Mbirt View Post
    Shh! Now everyone is going to show up with torque-based calibrations in 2015
    Shhh! Both of you talk too much.

  2. #22
    The 2014 Formula Hybrid Rules have been posted too, at http://www.formula-hybrid.org/index.php

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Stuttgart
    Posts
    494
    Quote Originally Posted by Canuck Racing View Post
    But why in the world are massive wing mounts sending bending moments and aero loads through the roll hoop bracing still legal?
    They are not. The rules already state that the main hoop bracings must have additional triangulated supports if the have to take bending loads otherwise. At FSG this year several teams had to weld additional supports for their main hoop bracings because the wing supports were sending bending loads into them.
    Rennteam Uni Stuttgart
    2008: Seat and Bodywork
    2009: Team captain

    GreenTeam Uni Stuttgart
    2010: Seat and Bodywork / Lamination whore

    Formula Student Austria
    2012: Operative Team

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by tromoly View Post
    A few of us were talking about this earlier at our "small" school, and we really don't see why aero is such an important feature for every team to implement. Yes it can work, yes it can be beneficial, but a non-Aero car (looking at you, Auburn, in Autocross at Michigan this year) can be developed to be nearly as fast. Not every team wants to run aero packages, it should be up to each individual team if they think it's worth the effort, and with the revolving regulation that would be another factor to keep in mind. Personally I think it's a great rule, keep teams from showing up with the same aero package as years previous and adding variety to the paddock.
    Sorry, I wasn't implying that we need aero to be competitive.. As you said it, with the present rules, a non-aero car can be very competitive. What I meant to say is that for «small» teams that do want to play the aero game (performance, or learning, or any other good or bad reason), the new rules would make it harder for them to have a competitive aero package. It is already up to the team to choose, it's just that the new rules would make the minimum effort for aero even bigger, which I don't think is what we need in FSAE, we don't need another factor to keep in mind. It seems that there intention is to make the students learn and understand the basic of aerodynamics. But I think that overall, teams that already knows it will continue to do so, and other students won't learn these basics because they will drop the aero altogether.

    In the propostion they state they want to add challenge, but I think FSAE is already challenging as it is for most of the teams. Teams with less manpower needs more time and long term planning to develop a concept and reach the "level" of bigger teams, that is normal and fine by me. But we need time to get there, if the rules keep changing, we cannot make this planned evolution.
    :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::
    2007-2012 - Suspension, chassis, and stuff (mostly stuff)
    Université de Sherbrooke

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Bemo View Post
    They are not. The rules already state that the main hoop bracings must have additional triangulated supports if the have to take bending loads otherwise. At FSG this year several teams had to weld additional supports for their main hoop bracings because the wing supports were sending bending loads into them.
    You are correct Bemo. Good to hear they at least enforce the rule overseas.

    "T3.13.7 If any item which is outside the envelope of the Primary Structure is attached to the Main Hoop braces, then additional bracing must be added to prevent bending loads in the braces in any rollover attitude."

    I guess my next bone to pick will have to be the lack of a welding test a la Baja SAE, though the test is obviously easily circumvented.

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,688
    Aerodynamics 1 - I think this would hurt the teams that have few aero knowledge more than anything. Let's say we design a first car, new platform more suitable for an aero package. For a small team, this can easily take two years if it includes new chassis, new suspension and new engine at the same time. Then, another year to adjust the new platform after testing and design a first iteration aero package. Then the year after then can come with a car with a sensible, data tested aero package on a platform designed for the purpose.
    I don't have time for a full-blown rant, and this isn't directed at the author of the above quote.

    But why is it that so many people these days,
    SPEND SO MUCH TIME, DOING SO LITTLE!

    Two years to design a "new platform more suitable for an aero package"???!!!

    What (TF!) are you doing for all that time?

    All that is required is one long day of everybody "brainstorming" the problem, another week to mull it over and maybe change some priorities, and then one more week to get the "General Assembly" drawings done! Then get stuck into the detail drawings, start making stuff, and get something driveable that can be tested as soon as possible. More detailed fine-tuning, some new parts, etc., can come later.

    The root problem here is the lackadaisical education system, compounded by a world where everyone's stomachs are so full that their brains have stopped working. That is, it is considered perfectly acceptable these days to spend endless time and money on a supposed problem, with no real results to show at the end of it.

    The whole point of FSAE is prove emphatically to you students that if you think that spending even 10 months playing "video games" is a good idea (ie. "optimising the design"), then when you get to comp with your "optimised" but UNTESTED car you will be shown to be complete and utter losers! Sadly, too many students these days seem quite happy with that.

    Well, longer mini-rant than I intended, but how about some real progress...?

    Z

  7. #27
    Z - I couldn't agree more. I don't want to derail the thread but as I've said before if the proposed changes to use the cost report/business case come true and they integrate it into design, we should have a game-changing year. If done properly (and It'll take a few years for teams and judges alike to transition,) there will no longer be much of a "design" event, but rather a "design for a budget and manufactuarability and market" event.

    You know, just like the REAL world.

  8. #28
    *In a normal design cycle, I do include testing and validation time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Z View Post
    What (TF!) are you doing for all that time?
    Z
    (P.S. I know it's not personal, don't worry)

    Reality of a disorganized, inexperienced, non-supervised small fsae team time split (my experience only) :

    50% : Finding money/sponsors
    30% : Learning/Relearning the basics (what you haven't been teached like, e.g., how to properly size a fastener/gears/etc., or calculating using vectors, or... list is long)
    15% : Checking correcting your and others many errors/dealing with people egos
    4% : Make a design, then get destroyed in a design review because you had no clue what you were doing.
    1% : Doing work that actually help design/build/run the car, because now you have some prior experience.
    0% : Properly documenting your design so that future students can benefit from your experience and not undergo the totally inefficient learning curve you had to go through.

    It's all part of the learning process. It just takes about 100 times more time than from someone with experience, but that is also the goal. When you start being good enough at it, you get kicked out and need to find a job and are great at designing sewing machines and the like. I spent months doing rubbish work that went to scrap, but I learned a lot from it.


    In an effort not to derail the thread :


    I do think that including more the target market/price point in the design event is great.
    :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::
    2007-2012 - Suspension, chassis, and stuff (mostly stuff)
    Université de Sherbrooke

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    231
    Quote Originally Posted by Z View Post
    get to comp with your "optimised" but UNTESTED car you will be shown to be complete and utter losers!

    Z
    I think the Japanese FS series requires some kind of proof that (video recording) be submitted about one month before comp to show that the car is running.
    If you don't submit it you can't compete.
    I don't have any proof for that claim though.

    No reason why that can't be done for the other comps.

    Personally I like the idea of having a 'first drive day'.
    For example in the USA pick 10 to 20 universities spread across the country to host an autocross one month before comp.
    There are ~100 US teams, so ~10 teams per event; and the Universities would be picked to keep travel time down.
    There would be a short tech inspection and then each team gets a few runs.
    I think it could be done in one long day for most teams, and few would have to stay the night.

    I know things like insurance, liability, and getting volunteers could pose a problem for some areas but I like the idea

    -William

  10. #30
    If I remember correctly, FSE (FSG Electric) had something like that. Don't know if it was actually used or not.

    You probably want 500-800 Km of running at least before your first competition. (that's about 30 enduro's + extra's). As you can do max. two to four a day and ~3 of those days a week you get about 4 weeks of testing before your comp. Take into account that your car WILL brake down and two months is about the minimum.
    Tristan
    Delft '09 Team member, '10 - Chief Electronics
    'now' (Hardware) Security Engineer

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 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