+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 15 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 149

Thread: Reasonable suggestions for Rule Changes / Amendments / Improvements

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    762

    Reasonable suggestions for Rule Changes / Amendments / Improvements

    The concept of a rules suggestion thread has been raised elsewhere, so I might give it a go. I would hope that we are mature enough to have this discussion such that the outcome is an improved competition for everyone, not an improved outcome for our individual teams.

    I suggest the following format:
    1. Existing rule (if any): Describe the existing rule, quoting the rule number
    2. Existing shortcoming: Describe the existing shortcoming in the current rule/s, in terms of how the existing rules do not meet the intent of the competition (i.e. missed or inadequate learning outcomes for competitors, or unnecessary difficulty for the officials to provide fair and consistent implementation of the rules)
    3. Your suggested improvement: Describe your suggested new ruling, as concisely and succinctly as possible. Provide a balanced argument for its adoption – a good engineer will state potential shortcomings that may occur as well as potential benefits.
    4. Summary of your case: Describe how your suggested change will improve the competition as a whole – e.g. improved learning outcomes for competitors, improved ability for the officials to provide fair and consistent implementation of the rules, improved efficiency of running the event)

    Some comments:
    • Before putting electron to screen, ask yourself:
    o How are ALL teams affected by this? Think of your “opposite team” –if you have wings, think of a team without –if you have a carbon tub, think of a spaceframe team. Will your “improvement” be an improvement to them too?
    o Would I want to be the competition official implementing this? For example, if your idea is to make the cost report more “real-world” by allowing teams to cost as per receipts rather than standardized costings – then are you willing to volunteer to check every receipt of every report submitted for your competition?
    o Why is the rule, or task, or report there in the first place?
    o Was my first adverse reaction to this issue because of inconvenience to me? What came first – a desire for a better competition, or annoyance at how the existing rules affect me. I often suspect that the words I read here are the fairest words that fit our own agenda, and not so much the result of an agenda to provide the fairest event.

    So, with that out of the way – who would like to suggest changes to the rules that will make this event fairer or easier to manage, or that will improve learning outcomes for all?

    I’ve got a suggestion about scoring –but it is past the time I should have hit the hay…
    Geoff Pearson

    RMIT FSAE 02-04
    Monash FSAE 05
    RMIT FSAE 06-07

    Design it. Build it. Break it.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    762
    BTW, this is long term outlook stuff - not a last minute attempt to get stuff into next years rules
    Geoff Pearson

    RMIT FSAE 02-04
    Monash FSAE 05
    RMIT FSAE 06-07

    Design it. Build it. Break it.

  3. #3
    Here is my contribution

    1. Rule IC1.1.1 Specifically "The engine(s) used to power the car must be a piston engine(s) using a four-stroke primary heat cycle
    with a displacement not exceeding 610 cc per cycle"

    2. Limits us to engines under 610cc, realistically 600cc unless you're going to do some serious machining or put a big bore kit on a single. That then limits us to only a few competitive engine options.

    3. Increase displacement to 655cc to allow a lot more engines in competition. Peak power is going to stay the same with the restrictor.

    4. The rules essentially limit most teams to four competitive engine options. You either run the N/A 4 cylinder 600cc sport bike engine, the 550 twin (competitiveness is questionable), a snowmobile engine, or a single from a dirt bike or quad (turbo or not its the same engine). There are maybe 10-11 different engine options if you want to get brand specific. Opening up the displacement to 655 allows another 4 cylinder, a lot of v twins, and a few big bore singles. It gives the teams that can't machine an engine or seriously rework it a lot more options.
    Last edited by 404namenotfound; 02-16-2014 at 08:41 PM.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    762
    Cool, nicely written 404. In the interests of positive and constructive discussion, as opposed to argument or just cataloguing reasons why it can't be done, I'll offer the following:

    I've certainly thought that an increase in the number of engine options would add some further complexity and some necessity to rethink a few assumptions to the FSAE project. I don't think we need to make the project any more difficult, but the knowledge of existing engine options and arguments for each is pretty well established now.

    I don't like the diesel option, simply because a engine management failure can easily result in wide open throttle - something we do not want in a student comp. I know you did not raise this, but I'm just justifying my overall position.

    We don't need more power. But I think that with advancing technology, we can expand the range of engine choices. This is a non-engine guy thinking from first principles here.

    An engine converts the chemical energy of oxygen and fuel into mechanical power. Historically we have focussed on the oxygen side of things to limit power - think intake restrictor and a limitation on the displacement of the "air pump". Is there a way we can put a similar flow limiter into the fuel system?? I'm looking for input from the engines /control systems experts here - does a cheap reliable fuel flow meter / limiter exist?

    If we can set a limit for fuelflow, and for air flow, and there are no secondary buffers /plenums / storage downstream, then we are limiting the instantaneous rate of intake of the raw combustion reactants and therefore setting a ceiling on power. We would also be rewarding efforts to increase the thermodynamic efficiency of the engine. And we would not need "a limit on the size of the air pump".

    Being controversial here, I'd like to see the engine rules opened up to include any engine cycle that is throttled with some sort of closeable throttling device. Two strokes, four strokes, rotaries, other cycles??. I think the days of this competition being about preparing engineers for the car industry are behind us - it is about preparing engineers to be work ready when they graduate, and able to reason their way through a complex engineering project. The key graduate skills we spruik as a reason for the competitions existence are the transferable ones anyway - the higher level decision making skills, communication skills, presentation skills, etc.

    If the exclusion argument is about preparing engineers for specific engine development tasks, why cater only to the engineers who work with cars, four stroke motorcycles etc? What about engineers who go to work for KTM/Husqvarna and end up working on two stroke motorcycles, for example? Is there any reason we should exclude them? Two-strokes are not completely obsolete - for example, KTM's best-selling motorcycle in Australia for a number of recent years has been a two-stroke.

    If the exclusion argument is about environmental impact, then wouldn't it be better to penalize the teams for the impact, rather than just take that choice away from them? For example, we already effectively address the environmental impact of fuel usage by rewarding teams that minimize the fuel they consume in the Endurance Event. If the argument against two strokes is that they burn oil and pollute, then why not use a similar "user pays" principle with two stroke oil? Teams nominate how much oil is mixed in with the fuel, officials mix the fuel and oil themselves, final oil usage calculated after Endurance when the tank is re-filled. Teams pay a set number of points per litre of oil used. Any implementation issues like how teams might cheat the system by hiding oil somewhere are no more challenging than the teams covering up petrol usage.

    I think the competition's learning outcomes can be improved by expanding the range of choices available to the competing teams, therefore getting the teams to do more first principle decision making. We cannot compromise on safety, so the core safety rules need to be in place, comprehensive, and able to be tested and monitored for rules compliance in a way that is reasonable for the volunteer crew we have administering this event. Once the safety rules are in place, then the ideal rule set to me would be one where the whole "points economics" system was function-based:
    You get points for achieving positive outcomes on the functions we want: setting fast times in the on track events, demonstrating knowledge in the report events - and I'd even add points into the mix for lower noise readings, demonstrated professionalism in race-day pit management, getting through each of the scrutineering tests first time. The idea being, if performing a function demonstrates that you are a better engineer, or it delivers an outcome that is to society's benefit, then we should award points for it- and the number of points needs to be accurately defined at the beginning of the project.
    Conversely, you lose points for the attributes we don't want - fuel usage, oil usage, tyre usage, vehicle cost, noise. If it demonstrates you have not achieved your job as an engineer, or if it delivers an outcome that society does not favour, you lose points.

    The rulebook effectively becomes a guide to the "graduate attributes point-scoring marketplace"- you get points when you do good, you lose points when you don't do good. The rules ideally should give all the information required for the competitors to complete a full and reasoned analysis of the "pointscoring economics" of this year's rule set. (And I did not mean "spoon-fed" the information required - but that the trade-offs should be able to be quantified by those who rigorously analyse the design problem itself).

    I'm not saying that the FSAE rulebook does not do this. In fact, I've been in awe over the years at what a great set of rules we have started with, to allow such a diverse competition and to give us such a rich pasture of learning opportunities. I am aware that many sports rulebooks become incredibly unwieldy as "creative interpretations" or undesired outcomes of existing rules attract "you are not allowed to do...." style of rules. But as anyone who has read my malarkey on these boards here will know, my brain keeps running back to the top end of the design process whenever a complex problem appears - and often much simpler and more elegant results can be found by re-thinking assumptions and objectives at a high level. I'm sure Michael Royce and the people at the top end of this competition know this without me telling them!

    Cheers all,
    Geoff Pearson

    RMIT FSAE 02-04
    Monash FSAE 05
    RMIT FSAE 06-07

    Design it. Build it. Break it.

  5. #5
    As much as I would love to see some two strokes blasting around MIS I think it comes down to the idea that an FSAE car should at least in theory be a weekend auto-x machine. I feel a lot of the rules are SCCA kosher and to some extent the original rules wanted us to build and A-mod with a restrictor. You'd be hard pressed to find a sanctioning body that would allow a two stroke. Then the question arises is that still the goal today?

    Going back to my point about allowing a larger engine. You're not going to make more power with more displacement since almost every car on the track reaches choked flow already. A larger engine will reach that point sooner. 8,300 rpm versus 9k based on my math. Running a larger motor will have the same effect on peak power as running a smaller engine at a higher rpm and past the choke point. If you limit air you do limit the max power you can achieve. There are diminishing returns and eventually a drop in power by running rich on a gasoline engine. The only way to get more power with a set airflow is to increase efficiency, one way to do that is running higher compression pistons.

    That then leads into fuel flow limitations. You could limit fuel flow with an orifice (aka restrictor) and a pressure regulator prior to that orifice. There wouldn't be a point though. We're already limited by airflow to 85-90 horsepower.


    My thinking is we already have a restrictor and we can't really make any more power than the ~90 horsepower we do now. With choked flow and atmospheric pressure being what they are a larger engine doesn't really net you and noticeable gains in power until we start looking at the more complicated system with friction. The only variable that displacement has any significant impact on is where we reach choked flow and how long we're there.
    Last edited by 404namenotfound; 02-17-2014 at 02:31 PM.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    467
    Quote Originally Posted by 404namenotfound View Post
    As much as I would love to see some two strokes blasting around MIS I think it comes down to the idea that an FSAE car should at least in theory be a weekend auto-x machine. I feel a lot of the rules are SCCA kosher and to some extent the original rules wanted us to build and A-mod with a restrictor. You'd be hard pressed to find a sanctioning body that would allow a two stroke. Then the question arises is that still the goal today?

    Going back to my point about allowing a larger engine. You're not going to make more power with more displacement since almost every car on the track reaches choked flow already. A larger engine will reach that point sooner. 8,300 rpm versus 9k based on my math. Running a larger motor will have the same effect on peak power as running a smaller engine at a higher rpm and past the choke point. If you limit air you do limit the max power you can achieve. There are diminishing returns and eventually a drop in power by running rich on a gasoline engine. The only way to get more power with a set airflow is to increase efficiency, one way to do that is running higher compression pistons.

    That then leads into fuel flow limitations. You could limit fuel flow with an orifice (aka restrictor) and a pressure regulator prior to that orifice. There wouldn't be a point though. We're already limited by airflow to 85-90 horsepower.


    My thinking is we already have a restrictor and we can't really make any more power than the ~90 horsepower we do now. With choked flow and atmospheric pressure being what they are a larger engine doesn't really net you and noticeable gains in power until we start looking at the more complicated system with friction. The only variable that displacement has any significant impact on is where we reach choked flow and how long we're there.
    What? At every well-attended SCCA autocross I've been to the majority of the open-wheelers have been 2-strokes. The FJ/F125/KM karts, FM/F500 (small bore 2s snowmobile-powered), and wicked AM cars sometimes powered by big-bore snowmobile 2s's easily outnumber the smattering of Formula Fords, Formula Vees, and FSAE cars that might show up.

    I agree with your proposal to increase the displacement limit, but only for the reason of allowing engine choices such as the Ninja/ER650 and SV-650 twins. Then you have a Triumph 675 cc 3-cyl at 125 hp that should be considered. At 686 cc the Yamaha Raptor 700R thumper might have the greatest potential among the big-bore singles. You're correct that the intake restrictor will limit power and displacement increases won't yield unfair powertrain configurations. You're incorrect, however, in assuming that almost every car on track is reaching choked flow. 600/4's, as long as the restrictor is limiting the power and not atrocious intake/exhaust deisgn, are obviously hitting choked flow. Singles and twins with poor intake design can choke the restrictor on a pulse-by-pulse basis, but are definitely not reaching time-averaged choked flow. Erlangen's well-tuned Ape, Wisconsin's turbo KTM thumper, and well-tuned or supercharged Genesis 80 fi's are likely the only singles and twins getting anywhere close to choked flow. I'll go out on a limb and say the ER650 and SV650 will behave as unrestricted with good intake and exhaust design to put out 70-75 hp and not choke the restrictor. UM-Dearborn did this with a Genesis 80fi a few years ago, making 80 hp naturally aspirated with restrictor.

    Fuel flow restrictors are needlessly complex for this series. We're already airflow restricted and locked into a finite air-fuel ratio range for each fuel choice and engine design, LBT to the lean limit for instance.

    Geoff, I am heavily involved in the SAE Clean Snowmobile Challenge where 2-strokes, 4-strokes, Wankels, and Diesels are allowed. Emissions and noise are heavily weighted. The catch is that the competition is one full week long to get the scant 15-20 internal combustion competitors through all events. Instead of keeping the insurance company happy by mandating an intake restrictor, a snowmobile will be disqualified if it exceeds 130 hp in the pre-emissions power sweep test. Laboratory emissions and passby noise testing are especially time-consuming and I imagine the expensive testing would not be possible without government grants and major sponsorship of testing equipment from companies like AVL. One nice thing about the powertrain testing nature of the competition is that it largely removes rider from the team's performance. The points structure is as follows:

    Engineering Design Paper 100
    Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price 50
    Laboratory Emissions 300
    Brake Specific Fuel Consumption 50
    In-Service Emissions 50
    In-Service Fuel Economy 50
    Oral Presentation 100
    Fuel Economy and Endurance 200
    Acceleration 50
    Objective Handling 50
    Subjective Handling 50
    Cold start 50
    Static Display 50
    Objective Noise 150
    Subjective Noise 150
    No-Maintenance Bonus 100

    The BRP DI 2-stroke can be competitive, an especially well-done example from U of Idaho placed 3rd last year. Potential issues are that the smallest version of the ETEC engine is 600 cc and that the injectors are difficult to control with a standalone ECU. In FSAE, it could offer a real efficiency advantage running stratified charge in endurance. Diesels are limited by the emissions soot limit and won't be competitive until teams implement common rail injection to increase power without increasing soot. 2014 is the last year diesels are allowed, unfortunately. By the way, with respect to diesels in FSAE, if electronic throttle control is allowed in 2015, shouldn't diesels get the green light if the only concern is diesels dieseling after shutdown? Electric FSAE cars already use electronic torque control instead of the foot->cable->butterfly connection. It could just be required that diesels feature an electronic throttle body for fault management (modern diesels are being throttled to increase EGR flow anyway).
    -----------------------------------
    Matt Birt
    Engine Calibration and Performance Engineer, Enovation Controls
    Former Powertrain Lead, Kettering University CSC/FSAE team
    1st place Fuel Efficiency 2013 FSAE, FSAE West, Formula North
    1st place overall 2014 Clean Snowmobile Challenge

  7. #7
    I totally forgot about the karts and things. My bad. They're not that big in my area.

    I said almost all, not all of them always. I'd also say that if you're choking from pulsing with the singles that counts the same as having 4 separate pulses. No one but the turbo teams are really continuously choking the restrictor. The point I was making is that we already reach choked flow so we're already in the ball park any IC engine with similar efficiency is going to make.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    117
    My comment has more to do with a potential future rule change, an agreement that something needs to be done about the current ruleset, and a few ideas that I've already sent the rules committee.

    1. Existing rule (if any): IC 3.2, specifically
    IC3.3
    Maximum Sound Level
    The maximum permitted sound level is 110 dBA, fast weighting.
    IC3.4
    Noise Level Re-testing
    At the option of the officials, noise can be measured at any time during the
    competition. If a car fails the noise test, it will be withheld from the competition until it has been modified and re-passes the noise test

    Potential change: T15.8
    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

    2. Existing shortcoming: To me, the current shortcoming is the (seeming) lack of re-testing that is happening for some of the single cylinder cars. I can think of 3 cars in particular that everyone I talked to were amazed these 3 cars got through noise. After talking with one of the teams, it was no longer a surprise, but more a source of frustration than anything. I will leave their methods for passing noise out, but they were nothing that any other team couldn't do. The biggest shortcoming is that cars are passing noise, then are extremely loud on track. To me, the noise test does not replicate the on track conditions (full throttle/high load) nor is there any real consequence for changing the exhaust/noise output of the vehicle between Tech and on-track competition.

    Currently, an off-the-shelf muffler and some slight tuning tweaks can get you through noise with a single cylinder. I do not have enough experience with 4 cylinders or other engine combinations to comment on the ease of getting through the current noise test with those engine combinations. If the goal of the noise test really is to make sure that the track workers are not going deaf, then to me, this solution should be kept as a viable one.

    3. Your suggested improvement: I've come up with a couple of possible changes to the rules, but neither will ultimately fix the issue. The first thing I thought of would be very labor intensive on the part of the organizers, which is less than ideal, since the organizers are already spread thin. My suggestion would be any team or official could "challenge" the noise of any vehicle, which would send them back to the noise trial to be tested, accompanied by a competition official/volunteer/organizer/whomever. On the way, they are not allowed to touch the vehicle, except for the allowed modifications in the rules. If the car is found to be over the noise limit, all points that were just earned would be removed from the team totals, and the team gets a DNA or DNF for that portion of the competition. This would definitely need some ironing out, as there is currently nothing that would prevent a team from challenging a vehicles noise output during the morning of Skidpad/Accel, and causing the team to lose an hour or so from that 4 hour block, which could be used for strategic purposes with no checks/balances. Beyond that is still the needs on the part of the organizers to provide volunteers to walk back and forth with cars all day, taking away (likely) from track workers, which would make for unsafe cone-shagging and overall worsen the quality of competition.

    The second possible option I came up with would be something like the SCCA uses, which is to find a place on course where the vehicles are most likely to be at full throttle under full load, and test some distance from the track. This could be done on the accel run (would have to be around the 60-ish meter mark, to prevent any secondary rev limiting devise from interfering with the noise reading), autocross and endurance courses (although endurance would be very difficult with multiple vehicles running around at the same time) without a significant increase in the number of volunteers required, and would keep unreasonable protests from happening. If a team is found to be over the noise limit, on run 1, they have run 2 to quiet down, or they could be penalized the number of points gained in the event. So if driver 1 for his accel run is over the noise threshold, he would be able to lift off throttle during the run to quiet the noise and get a valid run in or continue to compete over the noise limit and effectively waste his/her runs.
    The potential issues with this solution include the directionality of the exhaust coming out of the vehicle having a significant impact on noise reading, the fact that there may or may not be a pre-competition noise test to sort out vehicles that are obviously loud, and the potential impact of multiple vehicles running full throttle under high load in close proximity to each other. Another issue with this is the lack of time between runs 1 and 2 for a given driver in each of the events. At the SCCA there are several minutes between runs, allowing word to be communicated to the driver of each vehicle, whereas in FSAE (at least the events I've been to) there are but a handful of seconds between runs.

    4. Summary of your case: If the proposal to change the rules really is about the noise on track, then to me it makes the most sense to measure the noise of the vehicles on track, rather than in a very controlled environment that is isolated almost completely from the track events. If the proposal to change the current rule is to stop teams from buying off-the-shelf mufflers and is to force the teams to design their own as an engineering exercise, then it would seem that the way the rule change is worded could work. If the goal is to quiet down a few cars which seem to be exceptions to the rule, rather than the rule itself, then this would seem to punish all teams for the actions of a few.

    As a reference, at FSAE-Lincoln, they measured our single cylinder car both cBA and once we passed, dBC to get an idea of the differences in measurement. dBA reading was 110db even. dBC reading was 119db. Our car at local SCCA events was significantly quieter than others which were deemed to be under the 97dB at 50 feet rule that the SCCA enforces.

    -Matt
    Matt Davis
    University of Cincinnati
    Bearcat Motorsports: 2012-2013: Suspension guy

    Bilstein: 2013 - ??: Product Engineer

    This post is a collection of my own thoughts and opinions, and in no way, shape or form reflects the thoughts/opinions of my company, my university or anyone else but myself.

  9. #9
    Great suggestion Geoff, I hope this thread gets up to something. I like your proposal of allowing more engine types in FSAE and I will also say that we do not need more power. However, I am gonna take it a step further. Currently there are "combustion" classes (4 stroke petrol/diesel), electric classes (various max voltages allowed depending on competition), the formula hybrid competition as well as the alternative fuel class in FSUK. My proposal is to merge those classes, like FSUK tried to do a few years ago. The most apparent problem in this is judging efficiency, and I have not yet thought about how you can equalize that factor. By the FSUK rules, EV's were given an unfair advantage over combustions, so the proportions (scoring formula) should definitely change.

    Another thing that bugs me is the maximum voltage level for EV cars (EV 1.1.2), that basically prohibits European cars to compete in non-european competitions. It would make it easier to have a global set of rules.

    EV 4.10 - Energy meter: I find it useful for every competition to use the same standardized energy meter, as teams can design for it and not wait almost until the comp. FSE energy meter is an excellent example, and we will avoid problems like the Formula ATA (almost) fiasco with the organizers being unsure of energy meter data because of the rain (!)

    One last thing (that is already proposed for 2015) is lowering the power limit for 4WD EV's; under current rules, they have a significant advantage, at least at the acceleration event.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Stuttgart
    Posts
    494
    Electric and combustion cars were running together in one class in other competitions than FSUK too - and in general, nobody was happy with it. FS Austria decided to have two seperate classes this year after having them running in one class for a couple of times. The problem is that you always have to adjust the rules if you want both concepts to be able to win. Efficiency is only one problem. Electric cars under the current rules have a significant advatage in acceleration too.
    In the end you can't tell if the winning team won because they showed the best performance or because they were favoured by tthe rules as you end up with some kind of balance of performance rules which is definitely not the intend of a design competition for students. As said, it was already tried and nobody was happy with it (there was quite a lot of feedback from EV and from IC teams after FS Austria last year that in the future there should be seperate classes - no feedback in the other direction).
    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

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 15 1 2 3 11 ... 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