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

Thread: Survey about new aero rules

  1. #21
    Rather than a track change, how about the designation that the UK uses of class 1 and class 2, but give a simple rule set to each of them...but encourage innovation. I'm thinking LMP1 and GT style classes now.

    So, going out on a limb here and improvising a little...

    Class 2 is limited to the standard frame set, no aero, and something along those lines to keep the difficulty down -- maybe no structural composites including suspension as those seem to fail often. I'm thinking this is aimed at teams that are new to the series and those that are...not mature enough yet to figure themselves out.

    Class 1, teams must use the SRCF (or maybe allowed to use) along with allowed structural composite components, aero allowed, basically how it is now. Maybe add the condition that a team must finish endurance at least at 1 competition before they are allowed into class 2.

    Run them through the same events, same course, class 1 winners, class 2 winners, not directly competing against each other.

    The only benefit I could see of a style like this is being able to change the rules for one level of competition without affecting the other. So, some of the discussion of aero could solve the dispute of how the newbies and those unable to compete on the same level of some of the high dollar, well organized, teams. Although, that would mean the overall rule book may grow, you, as a team,would be concerned about a smaller section of it. Some of it applies to you, some of it is not allowed to apply to you.

    Just a thought, Dunk.
    Kettering University Vehicle Dynamics
    Formula SAE 2010 - 2015
    Clean Snowmobile Powertrain 2012 - 2015

    Boogityland 2015 - Present

  2. #22
    I think this is all getting too complicated.
    Different point schemes, even differnet classes. I think this is not the way to go.
    If we would have "the small, easy class" and the "high-end, difficult class", we would further put a gap between "good, successful" and "not-so-good" teams. I think the goal is to push beginner teams to be able to compete on the level of all teams. If one would limit their choices, they will not learn as much and the difference in the level of knowledge in the teams gets wider and wider. It's like Supra at India: If you limit the engine choice to one, there is not much to learn about choosing an engine...
    Even now, I feel that the "respect" of some team members of the successful teams for the small struggeling ones is very low. I think this would be even worse if we limit those teams to a "smaller, not so good" class.
    We had the same problem with Class1A in the UK. The 2010 Zurich or the 2011 Delft cars were awesome and won Class 1A but still it was "just" a Class1A victory, there were some strange comments from the "big Class 1" teams that were not very respectful.


    I like the idea of limiting the height of the cars (just make it a pass/fail Tech Inspection) and everything else stays like it is. If it would be possible for all competitions to publish a track layout when the rules are published, I even like the idea of developping tracks for Aero/big Aero/non-aero cars to give teams another challenge.
    In Spain 2012 the track was veeery narrow and slow, I think Aero hurt more than it helped but at Austria 2012, the track was super fast and Aero friendly, Aero definitely helped there. Both tracks were within the rule set, so therefore it is not possible to say one choice or the other is correct.
    If this is not possible that I think it is not within the intend of the rules to clearly favor one of the other design choice by designing a track where Aero cars "kill" everything or the other way round. Yes, it is "legal" to do 4-5-6-7 turns with minimum OD in a row to see how the cars get through and yes it is "legal" to do super-fast Aero corners all the way round and also it is legal to do uphill drag strips to destroy 1cylinder cars, etc. But it is not the intend of the rules, in my opinion...
    -------------------------------------------
    Alumnus
    AMZ Racing
    ETH Zürich

    2010-2011: Suspension
    2012: Aerodynamics
    2013: Technical Lead

    2014: FSA Engineering Design Judge

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by MCoach View Post
    Rather than a track change, how about the designation that the UK uses of class 1 and class 2, but give a simple rule set to each of them...but encourage innovation. I'm thinking LMP1 and GT style classes now.

    So, going out on a limb here and improvising a little...

    Class 2 is limited to the standard frame set, no aero, and something along those lines to keep the difficulty down -- maybe no structural composites including suspension as those seem to fail often. I'm thinking this is aimed at teams that are new to the series and those that are...not mature enough yet to figure themselves out.

    Class 1, teams must use the SRCF (or maybe allowed to use) along with allowed structural composite components, aero allowed, basically how it is now. Maybe add the condition that a team must finish endurance at least at 1 competition before they are allowed into class 1.

    Run them through the same events, same course, class 1 winners, class 2 winners, not directly competing against each other.

    The only benefit I could see of a style like this is being able to change the rules for one level of competition without affecting the other. So, some of the discussion of aero could solve the dispute of how the newbies and those unable to compete on the same level of some of the high dollar, well organized, teams. Although, that would mean the overall rule book may grow, you, as a team,would be concerned about a smaller section of it. Some of it applies to you, some of it is not allowed to apply to you.

    Just a thought, Dunk.
    I could definitely live with that. Although, I think it would probably be a good idea to include some additional limits on which class you could enter. So having completed endurance in at least one of the teams previous 2 or 3 competitions entered, as we've mentioned, to enter Class 1, but also teams that are consistently at the top of Class 2 shouldn't really be staying there, they should be pushed into Class 1. For example, if on average your team finished in the top 10% of class 2 in the previous season then you have to register for class 1. Changin back to class 2 is only an option if either you don't meet the endurance requirements, or you are in the bottom 10% of Class 1,

    If anything this would push the teams that are capable to do more as they will be forced into class one and given a more difficult challenge. Whereas the class 2 teams won't overstretch themselves because they know they know they have less design work to do, so can work on getting their house in order. Yes there might be a bit of looking down on class 2 teams, but would that not simply drive teams to meet the reliability requirements as their number one priority? That would be a major win in my opinion. If we can go from less than 50% of teams completing Endurance to over 80% that would be a major gain for the credibility of the competition.
    Dunk
    --------------------------------------------------------
    Brunel Racing
    2010-11 - Drivetrain Development Engineer
    2011-12 - Consultant and Long Distance Dogsbody
    2012-13 - Chassis, Bodywork & Aerodynamics manager

    2014-present - Engineer at Jaguar Land Rover

  4. #24
    The idea of two classes is very interesting and would make competition much more interesting for many more schools, but it only amplifies many of the current problems and complaints with the current rule set - are the rules there to provide a safe and educational experience or to try and balance the field competitively?

    Everyone who has made it through the SAE design programs knows there are engineering competitions first and motorsports competitions second, so why can't the rules committee do their job and make them as such?

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Alumni View Post
    Everyone who has made it through the SAE design programs knows there are engineering competitions first and motorsports competitions second, so why can't the rules committee do their job and make them as such?
    So bias the points more towards the static event? Although this would probably mean even less well built/finished cars.

    I'm curious as to people thoughts on changing the scoring system in dynamic events so that everyone competes against a fixed benchmark. For example, a preset average speed for AutoX and Enduro, one that isn't actually achievable, the closer you get the more points you get. At the moment if you finish outside a certain percentage of the winner you might get some token points. But that means as the best teams get faster and faster as they gain experience, knowledge, the fastest time gets lower and lower. Meanwhile all the new teams and the teams flapping about struggling to improve year on year (which often isn't their own fault) aren't getting any quicker, so more and more teams are being rewarded with diddely-squat. With a fixed target system a slow team still wouldn't get many points, maybe 20/300 instead of 3.5, so it isn't going to change anything overall, but they'll feel more recognised, after all they did build a reliable enough car to finish endurance, so they deserve more than just a wooden spoon.
    Dunk
    --------------------------------------------------------
    Brunel Racing
    2010-11 - Drivetrain Development Engineer
    2011-12 - Consultant and Long Distance Dogsbody
    2012-13 - Chassis, Bodywork & Aerodynamics manager

    2014-present - Engineer at Jaguar Land Rover

  6. #26
    Dunk,

    Are you suggesting that the competition revolve around designing, building, and operating a quick yet simple car that an average Joe weekend autocrosser might be interested in?

    This could change everything...

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Canuck Racing View Post
    Dunk,

    Are you suggesting that the competition revolve around designing, building, and operating a quick yet simple car that an average Joe weekend autocrosser might be interested in?

    This could change everything...
    The spirit of SAE!
    Adam
    Any views or opinions expressed by me may in no way reflect those of Kettering University, it's students and administrators, or our sponsors.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Z View Post
    On the other hand, I think it would be particularly interesting if the different major comps around the world each had very different tracks in any given year. That way the "big teams" that attend many comps would have to build an "all-purpose" car so they can score reasonably in all comps, whereas the smaller "local" teams could build a "specialised" car that best suits their comp. Superstar team vs home-field advantage... Who wins?

    Z
    Z -

    I have been to a few of the major competitions around the world which means that even if I have not personally experienced all of the competitions, I have spoken to many students from teams all around the world about their 'local' competitions. The tracks already vary widely because of other circumstances.

    - Michigan is very flat, very straight, very fast, and very dusty.
    - Lincoln is as bumpy as a 13 y/o's acne-ridden face and can be super windy (unstable conditions for a big-aero team).
    - UK likes to be wet and the track surface changes over the course.
    - Germany has its 'jumps' and a couple of pits in the course (sealing aero and jumps are not friendly).
    - Austria has off-camber corners, hills, and can rain in an instant.
    - Spain is reportedly one of the twistiest tracks ever devised to be within the constraints of the rules and is very hot (not good for big wings).
    - Italy is a crapshoot as far as how wide the track will be.
    - Australia is done on courses with crests, dirt, and no runoff.

    The tracks already vary pretty greatly (sometimes a bit more than the rules intend). I know that our team has different aero, suspension, and powertrain setups (and often components) for every competition we attend. Adding to the complexity with rules which vary every year wouldn't toss up our teams development since we have to make developments for each competition, but I bet it will hurt the 'local' teams who are not as lucky as we are.
    Jay Swift
    Combustion Powertrain
    Global Formula Racing 2013-2014

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by Swiftus View Post
    - Michigan is very flat, very straight, very fast, and very dusty.
    - Lincoln is as bumpy as a 13 y/o's acne-ridden face and can be super windy (unstable conditions for a big-aero team).
    Given that these are the only 2 that I have personally competed at, I can only comment on them. The other big difference is the surface. Michigan is sealed pavement, Lincoln is old concrete (very gritty, eats tires, and requires a completely different driving style at least in our car). I would imagine that several of the other tracks have similarly different surfaces. The "bumps" at Lincoln all seemed to be ~1" in amplitude, and they were about every 50', at several various angles to the track.

    -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.

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Swiftus View Post
    - UK likes to be wet and the track surface changes over the course.
    - Germany has its 'jumps' and a couple of pits in the course (sealing aero and jumps are not friendly).
    UK has, in the past, had different racing surfaces in one track, going form asphalt to concrete to painted concrete and back, crossing rumble strips mid corner...
    Germany goes from paddock surface (car park?) onto race track asphalt and back.
    Dunk
    --------------------------------------------------------
    Brunel Racing
    2010-11 - Drivetrain Development Engineer
    2011-12 - Consultant and Long Distance Dogsbody
    2012-13 - Chassis, Bodywork & Aerodynamics manager

    2014-present - Engineer at Jaguar Land Rover

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

Posting Permissions

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