Reasonable suggestions for Rule Changes / Amendments / Improvements

[mech5496]

Bemo,

I agree with you about adjustments; however, in real-life environments, all designs are competing against each other. IMO, combustion (4 and 2 strokes, wankels etc) as well as EVs and hybrids should be egligible, given that the rules can be equal to all. If IC cars can output 80kW, then 80kW should be the limit for EV's and hybrids as well. Matt's suggestion derived from CSC could work on that as well. The most "challenging" factor to get right is probably efficiency again...

[Bemo]

You're missing one important point. Even if power limitations are equal it depends on tge rules which concept is superior. What about increasing the endurance distance to 50km? All of a sudden the EV cars don't have a chance although it is the same for both. You always end up comparing apples with oranges. In real life it depends on what you want to do with a car what the best concept is. A rules set for a competition gives one artificial use case. If the rules would give you the possibility to build a boat instead of a car, but forces you to compete in the same disciplines you would choose to build a car as boats aren't very useful on tarmac. Same for the decision between electric and combustion cars. It only depends on the use case you define which the better concept is. Ofcourse you can always try to define it somewhere where it is hard to tell which concept is more suitable but did an electric car win because they did a better job than the best combustion team or because electric cars are favoured by the rules? It will be a never ending discussion.

[raitinger]

These are the issues, I've noticed after a few years doing tech inspections. There are always a few teams that are tripped up during tech with these issues, and end up having to plead their case to the inspectors, and so forth. I's also say these are the main sources of complaints regarding, "Well, we've run it this way for years.", "We ran like this at the other competition."

T3.24 Front Bodywork
T3.24.2 All forward facing edges on the bodywork that could impact people, e.g. the nose, must have forward facing radii of at least 38 mm (1.5 inches). This minimum radius must extend to at least forty-five degrees (45°) relative to the forward direction, along the top, sides and bottom of all affected edges.

• This is a rule I see teams continually get confused on, primarily when it comes to radii viewed from the top of the nose cone. The confusion comes from the, 45° relative to forward direction, reference. I think this language is ambiguous for students because it does not provide a point of reference to rotate a 45 from. In turn it is difficult to visualize and when they sit down to lay out the geometry in CAD they aren’t clear on what to do. Many seem to interpret the 45° reference as minimum width (top view) of the easily understandable 1.5in min radius from the side view. Under the current language a rectangle, long side forward, meets the 45° reference. The radius is infinite until some point past 45° at which the radius could be 0. I recommend providing a graphic to explain the intent or change the language to require a minimum radius from top and side view.

T11.2 Securing Fasteners
T11.2.1 All critical bolt, nuts, and other fasteners on the steering, braking, driver’s harness, and suspension must be secured from unintentional loosening by the use of positive locking mechanisms.

• It has been best practice to have some drivetrain components require positive locking, the rear sprocket and tripod housing bolts, while others are not included; lug nuts, front sprocket, and wheel center-to-rim bolts. This has been a point of contention for teams on multiple occasions, causing inspector discussions regarding the language of the rules that boil down to; rule of thumb, lumping desired bolts under “All critical bolts” (Grammatically incorrect interpretation of the rule) , or an assessment of failure scenarios. The rules need to be clarified regarding the drivetrain in this area, because the correct interpretation of the language mentions nothing regarding drivetrain components. The most common issue is that teams do not always safety wire the rear sprocket bolts, FYI it is a good idea go ahead and wire them regardless of the rules.

T4.5 Firewall
T4.5.1 A firewall must separate the driver compartment from all components of the fuel supply, the engine
oil, the liquid cooling systems and any high voltage system (PART EV-EV1.1). It must protect the neck of the tallest driver. It must extend sufficiently far upwards and/or rearwards such that any point less than 100 mm (4ins.) above the bottom of the helmet of the tallest driver shall not be in direct line of sight with any part of the fuel system, the cooling system or the engine oil system.

• The issue that I have noticed in recent years is that as some teams do not run sidepods, many teams have made it through tech inspection while not meeting the line of sight to the 4in. helmet point. Specifically with lines of sight to radiators, fuel system, or the occasional oil cooler. The teams have made it through with rational from inspectors, that if there aren’t any connections in the line of sight, then it is acceptable. I don’t really recommend any rules language change unless it is necessary, but more of a consensus on what is acceptable and communication of this to the tech inspectors.

[Kevin Hayward]

I believe that a shorter set of rules would be fantastic. At the moment the rules take up 168 pages. This is a very large growth from earlier years. For comparison the current LMP1 regulations are only 80 pages and have two languages included in them (only 40 pages of English). Each additional rule requires time and effort from students and the organisers. In many cases these rules offer little benefit. I believe the following rules could be removed, with particular reasons for each one. Note that I have not made any attempt to read through the EV rules, and what I propose is no where near a complete list of what can be removed (or shortened). Unfortunately there is no longer any way to do a quick read through of the rules, and I largely skimmed looking for what I believed were obvious candidates. I should also note that much of what I suggest be removed has been added, with much thought and time put into the creation of the rules. I don't think that removing rules is necessarily taking a step backwards, nor do I think it invalidates the value of the time the rule makers have invested. There have been many great clarifications and good safety related clauses that have been added over time.

T6.5.5
The steering wheel must have a continuous perimeter that is near circular or near oval, i.e. the outer
perimeter profile can have some straight sections, but no concave sections. “H”, “Figure 8”, or cutout
wheels are not allowed.

Reasoning: Many forms of motorsport use concave sections.

T6.7.1
The track and center of gravity of the car must combine to provide adequate rollover stability.

Reasoning: Redundant as this is both vague. Following rule detailing rollover test is sufficient, although could have slight word changes to include this rule easily)

T8.1
Coolant Fluid Limitations
Water-cooled engines must only use plain water. Electric motors, accumulators or HV electronics can
use plain water or oil as the coolant. Glycol-based antifreeze, “water wetter”, water pump lubricants
of any kind, or any other additives are strictly prohibited.

Reasoning: These additives are in common automotive use. They are less dangerous than many of the chemicals teams deal with.


1 Set of frame rules only.

Reasoning: If the existing frame regulations are too strict remove the added restrictions. Where the alternative frame rules are superior bring them into the main document.


Remove template restrictions.

Reasoning: By adding the template rules students have much less incentive to consider ergonomics. Building to the minimum template requirements makes it easy enough to fit any potential driver comfortably. This removes the possibility of students learning from bad ergonomics misjudgments. This also puts an emphasis back on judging a car on its ergonomic merits. If the template rules were maintained I believe that the templates should be smaller, to allow ergonomic studies to have more relevance.


IC1.7.1
Turbochargers or superchargers are allowed if the competition team designs the application. Engines
that have been designed for and originally come equipped with a turbocharger are not allowed to
compete with the turbo installed.

Reasoning: The restrictor is the primary limit on engine performance. Why not allow factory turbos?


IC2.4.4
Any size fuel tank may be used.

Reasoning - Not necessary (There are a few more rules that are written that provide no restriction at all. The rules already co-exist with other documentation such as frequently asked questions and examples. I don't believe these should be in the rules, so as to keep the document short and easily readable)


Remove the business logic case.

Reasoning: The intent of the business logic case is similar to the requirement of the marketing event. To my mind this just adds another level of documentation, with little effect to the design decisions made within the team. Philosophically I believe the bulk of the teaching and learning of the event occurs when designing, building and developing the car at the university. This sort of documentation should be recommended to teams, but not mandated. Universities almost universally teach project management for engineering courses already. An alternative might be to mandate that teams submit their marketing presentation slides (or similar material) prior to the event. This can then be used for cross checking with design and cost reports. In short look to amend the marketing event before creating a new task.


Remove the requirement for open wheeled cars.

Reasoning - Apart from shortening the rules this has the added effect of bring another area of design (and inherent trade-offs) to the competition, one that has distinct links to passenger vehicles. Course workers deal with sportscars outside of FSAE, so arguments about the ability to move cars are doubtful.

Kev

p.s. I also put the challenge to others to find places where the rules could be removed or shortened.

[Z]

I agree 100% with Kevin that the Rules are too long, and the best way to improve them is by a thorough pruning (it works for roses!).

IMO the Rules have got the way they are by the same processes that kill off many societies. Namely, some people want to "contribute to the betterment of our society" and they feel that the best way to do this is by "adding" something. In this case they add more Rules. They don't want to sit there in their retirement homes and say to their grandchildren "See that great big empty space with nothing much at all in it. Well..., I did that!"

Unfortunately, like bureaucracies, red-tape, and the Easter Islander's desire to erect ever more stone heads, this "more is always better" attitude can eventually be the death of the society.

Also, while the justification for many (most?) of the Rule additions is that "we must improve safety..", the stone-cold fact is that in any competition, whether it be tiddly-winks, ping-pong, FSAE, or any other, there is always be an element of risk. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE ANYTHING ABSOLUTELY SAFE. And a written document such as a "Rule Book" is probably the least useful area to instill more safety into FSAE.

As I have noted before, the biggest influences on real safety come from;
1. The track layout. More bumps and bends to slow the cars down, and less hard things to hit at speed, is generally safer.
2. A sensible approach to scrutineering and marshalling. Just because it is "legal" does NOT mean it is safe. And, conversely, something "illegal" might well be far safer than the accepted practice (see below).
3. Education of the competitors. In my experience, allowing the competitors to hurt themselves "a little bit" is very educational (although difficult to do in FSAE conditions, though I can think of a few ways...).

Bottom line here is that despite the ever growing Rulebook, I personally do not think FSAE cars are very safe (see below). More importantly, more Rules will NOT help. (Well, the only advantage of a lengthy Rulebook is that in the post-disaster courtroom the organisers can point to the NNN+ pages and say "We did everything in our power...".)
~~~~~o0o~~~~~

Here are some specific examples of what I am getting at (these are just a tiny fraction from the "General Technical Requirements", and covered very briefly here).

"T2.1..."

Long section devoted to banning "wheelpods". As Kevin suggested earlier, what educational or safety gains are there from banning full bodywork?
~o~

"T2.2 Bodywork
There must be no openings through the bodywork into the driver compartment from the front of the vehicle back to the roll bar main hoop or firewall other than that required for the cockpit opening. Minimal openings around the front suspension components are allowed."

The danger of "openings" is that something (perhaps a "front suspension component"!) can enter the cockpit and stab the driver in the leg, or somewhere more sensitive. This Rule ALLOWS the most dangerous type of opening, so does nothing, even from an educational point of view, to improve safety. More generally, most FSAE "bodywork" is extremely flimsy (and legally so), so provides little protection from intrusion.
~o~

"ARTICLE 3: DRIVER’S CELL
...
T3.5.5 If a bent tube is used anywhere in the primary structure, other than the front and main roll hoops, an additional tube must be attached to support it. The attachment point must be the position along the tube where it deviates farthest from a straight line connecting both ends...."

Ambiguous to the point of uselessness. If you use an "additional tube" to support a curved section at its mid-point, then you now have TWO unsupported curved sections! When do you stop? And, from an educational perspective, why are the "front and main roll hoops" ALLOWED to be curved, given that they are the main safety members?
~o~

"T3.10 Main and Front Roll Hoops – General Requirements
T3.10.1 The driver’s head and hands must not contact the ground in any rollover attitude..."

IMO this makes all current FSAE cars illegal (think about "ANY rollover attitude").
~o~

"T3.11 Main Hoop
...
T3.11.4 In the side view of the vehicle, the portion of the Main Roll Hoop that lies above its attachment point to the Major Structure of the Frame must be within ten degrees (10°) of the vertical.
...
T3.12 Front Hoop
...
T3.12.6 In side view, no part of the Front Hoop can be inclined at more than twenty degrees (20°) from the vertical."

So, below the level of the top of the Major Structure, the MRH is ALLOWED to be at any angle, say 45 degrees to vertical, to perhaps follow the line of the seat back. But the FRH must always be everywhere close to vertical, so it can NOT be used as a diagonal bracing member, by perhaps joining to the MRH at floor level, thus giving extra-thick-wall-tubing protection from side-impacts.
~o~

Bottom line here, the above overly-restrictive Rules, and those on Side-Impact-Structure, etc., make it very difficult to design a frame that is both efficient and safe. In fact, I have never seen an FSAE spaceframe that I consider efficient (ie. high strength and stiffness per mass), and most of them are not particularly safe.
~~~~~o0o~~~~~

As a real world comparison, here is a HyperProRacer (these have their own one-make comp here in Oz). These cars were designed by the father and son team of Jon and Dean Crooke, who have a long history in Australian motorsports (going back to grand-dad Crooke's days, IIRC).



The important point is, even though the primary requirement in the design of these cars was SAFETY (ie. to build a much safer Superkart), the cars would be considered ILLEGAL in FSAE. Bent tubes, aaarrghhh! Non-vertical FRH! SIS at the wrong height! Blah, blah, blah... (And note that these cars race at twice the speeds of FSAE, at around 200 kph!)
~~~~~o0o~~~~~

Anyway, I think it would be better to have a much shorter Rule book that spells out the "spirit of the competition", and gives a few hard constraints on what is, and is not, allowed. This could then be usefully accompanied by a much longer, and more educational, "Informal Guide to the FSAE Rules", which would act a bit like the "Rules FAQs", or this Forum. That is, it would suggest how to do a "best-practice" car, but it would not actually mandate anything.

That way it would not limit a clever team from coming up with an "even-better-than-best-practice" car, as I believe the Crooke's have done above.

Z

(PS. Geoff, I will have to talk with you about two-stroke diesels later... )

[exFSAE]

Going to break the format and tradition of lengthy posts here. Not a specific car rule but more toward the event itself... I've thought it would be great if the cone course were (a) drawn up well in advance and distributed, (b) the same for autocross, endurance, and "practice area.". Make it like going into a race weekend.

Now I know, the competition is supposed to be an engineering and car performance evaluation and not necessarily a 100% recreation of a race series. But I like the above concept from an engineering perspective in that you're not just making a generic car, how are you then tuning your setup to that specific track? What simulation and driver training work have you done? Are you doing anything differently for "qualifying" vs. "race" setup? When you get out to practice and log some data - how well does it match what you've geared yourself toward (literally!) in advance?

[Big Bird]

Agreed.
Eliminate unnecessary words.

[mech5496]

I think we all agree on keeping the Rules as short and understandable as possible is a great thing; on that note I could not help but noticing that section A takes 16 full pages! Nevertheless, I have some more comments.


T1.2.3: "The vehicle must maintain all required specifications, e.g. ride height, suspension travel, braking capacity (pad material/composition), sound level and wing location throughout the competition." Not sure if all these parameters are checked and how easy is to check them. Never checked on us.


T3.1: "Vehicle structure - 2 options". Unify AF rules with driver cell or mandate AF calculations for SES. Mandate minimum WT and OD and ask for calculations regarding strength and EI as part of SES would make rules much shorter and understandable while maintaining safety.


T3.23.2: "The front wing and wing supports may be forward of the Front Bulkhead, but may NOT be located in or pass through the Impact Attenuator. If the wing supports are in front of the Front Bulkhead, the supports must be included in the test of the Impact Attenuator for T3.22." How about the wing itself? If a very stiff/strong wing is mounted in mounts BEHIND the bulkhead, it still violates the intention of the rule, which IMO is ensure proper function of the IA. Either enforce testing with a wing in place, or at least SES-like calculations.


T3.24.2: "All forward facing edges on the bodywork that could impact people, e.g. the nose, must have forward facing radii of at least 38 mm (1.5 inches). This minimum radius must extend to at least forty-five degrees (45°) relative to the forward direction, along the top, sides and bottom of all affected edges." In conflict with 1.5mm radius for Aero devices (T9.3.1), would be better if unified and clear.


T4.7: "Driver visibility". Not sure of the necessity of this particular rule; however, if kept, a method of testing compliance can be included, something like this: "With the shortest driver seated normally, a two cones placed on an angle of 100deg relative to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle and at a distance of x meters should be visible", or even better place a camera at Percy's head height for that purpose.


T6.5.6: "In any angular position, the top of the steering wheel must be no higher than the top-most surface of the Front Hoop." Not sure of how useful this is; driver hands are already covered by the "roll-over envelope" formed from front and main hoop. As in matter of fact, I believe that the envelope should be formed by the bulkhead and the MRH, and not the front hoop.


Article 11: "Fasteners" Define properly "critical locations"


Regarding potential rule changes for 2015, I should note that I agree with all said.

[Alumni]

Having now been involved with FSAE as a student for many years, and now as a tech judge and been unofficially involved with a number of rule changes/rewrites over the years I thought I'd chime in and respond to as why a few things are the way they are:


T6.5.5
The steering wheel must have a continuous perimeter that is near circular or near oval, i.e. the outer
perimeter profile can have some straight sections, but no concave sections. “H”, “Figure 8”, or cutout
wheels are not allowed.

Reasoning: Many forms of motorsport use concave sections.

This is a holdout from the early days when many teams tried to run jr. dragster wheels, which should not be used in an autocross car. Obviously it is not strictly enforced any longer


T8.1
Coolant Fluid Limitations
Water-cooled engines must only use plain water. Electric motors, accumulators or HV electronics can
use plain water or oil as the coolant. Glycol-based antifreeze, “water wetter”, water pump lubricants
of any kind, or any other additives are strictly prohibited.

Reasoning: These additives are in common automotive use. They are less dangerous than many of the chemicals teams deal with.

Most of these additives leave a very slippery puddle behind when spilled/puked


1 Set of frame rules only.

Reasoning: If the existing frame regulations are too strict remove the added restrictions. Where the alternative frame rules are superior bring them into the main document.

Great idea, but would increase the complexity many times over. We'd be left with something like the LMP rules with the dozens of cryptic references to "ground planes" "reference planes" and "legality panels etc


Remove template restrictions.

Reasoning: By adding the template rules students have much less incentive to consider ergonomics. Building to the minimum template requirements makes it easy enough to fit any potential driver comfortably. This removes the possibility of students learning from bad ergonomics misjudgments. This also puts an emphasis back on judging a car on its ergonomic merits. If the template rules were maintained I believe that the templates should be smaller, to allow ergonomic studies to have more relevance.

No way in hell. I'm not even allowed to show you the video of some pre-template era crash tests, and I can attest that there are plenty of ways for ergonomic screw ups even with the templates. Downsizing them by maybe an inch or so - that's another story. After all, the current templates are used simply because that's what F1 was using (at the time anyway,) and we all know how well that excuse is supposed to go over with design judges.


Remove the business logic case.

Reasoning: The intent of the business logic case is similar to the requirement of the marketing event. To my mind this just adds another level of documentation, with little effect to the design decisions made within the team. Philosophically I believe the bulk of the teaching and learning of the event occurs when designing, building and developing the car at the university. This sort of documentation should be recommended to teams, but not mandated. Universities almost universally teach project management for engineering courses already. An alternative might be to mandate that teams submit their marketing presentation slides (or similar material) prior to the event. This can then be used for cross checking with design and cost reports. In short look to amend the marketing event before creating a new task.

If used properly - and it isn't - the business logic case is supposed to equalize the playing field between the big budget huge team techno-cars and the simplistic three guys in a shed ones. What should happen is the judges of various events decide "is this a good car for the target audience and price" not "is this a good car compared to the last one that rolled through."


Remove the requirement for open wheeled cars.

Reasoning - Apart from shortening the rules this has the added effect of bring another area of design (and inherent trade-offs) to the competition, one that has distinct links to passenger vehicles. Course workers deal with sportscars outside of FSAE, so arguments about the ability to move cars are doubtful.

With the addition of a front jacking bar (why isn't there one already?) I agree

[Alumni]

[QUOTE=mech5496;118806]

T1.2.3: "The vehicle must maintain all required specifications, e.g. ride height, suspension travel, braking capacity (pad material/composition), sound level and wing location throughout the competition." Not sure if all these parameters are checked and how easy is to check them. Never checked on us.

After tech, this is only checked "when in doubt" or if there is a reasonable protest from another team. I also believe some items are gone over again for the top endurance finishers.



T3.23.2: "The front wing and wing supports may be forward of the Front Bulkhead, but may NOT be located in or pass through the Impact Attenuator. If the wing supports are in front of the Front Bulkhead, the supports must be included in the test of the Impact Attenuator for T3.22." How about the wing itself? If a very stiff/strong wing is mounted in mounts BEHIND the bulkhead, it still violates the intention of the rule, which IMO is ensure proper function of the IA. Either enforce testing with a wing in place, or at least SES-like calculations.

This rule is an absolute mess in that it contradicts the "no non crushable objects ahead of the bulkhead" rule, and offers no explanation as to why you can't have supports run though the IA (as long as you test them.) What if an overly creative team built a wing that worked as part of the IA and nose cone? Oh wait, you can't because...

T3.24.2: "All forward facing edges on the bodywork that could impact people, e.g. the nose, must have forward facing radii of at least 38 mm (1.5 inches). This minimum radius must extend to at least forty-five degrees (45°) relative to the forward direction, along the top, sides and bottom of all affected edges." In conflict with 1.5mm radius for Aero devices (T9.3.1), would be better if unified and clear.

...these rules are also contradictory! Not to mention you're much more likely to be hit in the ankle by a wing or end plate than just the nose of a car.

T4.7: "Driver visibility". Not sure of the necessity of this particular rule; however, if kept, a method of testing compliance can be included, something like this: "With the shortest driver seated normally, a two cones placed on an angle of 100deg relative to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle and at a distance of x meters should be visible", or even better place a camera at Percy's head height for that purpose.

Ever since the template rules came into play, the only problem here I have ever seen has been immediate forward visibility - which is never checked and has no requirement, and I have sat in many a fsae car that had an unreasonably large front blind spot, which is really what the rule is trying to avoid.


T6.5.6: "In any angular position, the top of the steering wheel must be no higher than the top-most surface of the Front Hoop." Not sure of how useful this is; driver hands are already covered by the "roll-over envelope" formed from front and main hoop. As in matter of fact, I believe that the envelope should be formed by the bulkhead and the MRH, and not the front hoop.

The thought here is that in a serious rollover crash the front bulkhead will probably not be where it was when the crash began. The roll hoops should still be pretty close though.


Article 11: "Fasteners" Define properly "critical locations"

My rule of thumb in tech for this has been "If it comes loose, does the car coast, grind or skid to a halt?" If it is either of the latter two, it is probably critical.