+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 19 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 182

Thread: 2015 FSAE Rules

  1. #1

    2015 FSAE Rules

    Some rumors about the new rule set was made public today:

    According to Racecar Engineering (http://www.racecar-engineering.com/n...silverstone/):

    - Smaller Wings (inside of the wheels instead of outside)
    - Probably ban of unsprung aero?
    - Reduces noise level, dBC scale
    - Larger engines (700cc)
    - 2WD eCars with 80kW; 4WD eCars with only 50-60kW

    According to Scott (FSAE-A: https://www.facebook.com/FSAEAustralasia?fref=ts)

    smaller aero package, still refining details but current idea is to restrict rear wing width to inside of rear wheels.

    wing supports new rules

    engine size will go to ?higher? maybe 650-700

    restrictor turbo and throttle is the new order with plenum volume limit.

    ban on exhaust wrap due to fires

    reduced noise level and switch to DBC to bring single noise down.

    throttle by wire back in.

    electric cars power limit to be lowered 2WD -5kw, power down for 4wd 25-30kw

    these changes are international and should come in across the board

    Would be interessting to hear some thoughts outside of the old team..

    I think reducing aero is ok, but I would have chosen the height of the wing to reduce impact.
    4WD electric cars will probably go wing-less again.. the small rear wing at a low height due to the TSAL could be very inefficient... Looks like we are going to see the revival of the DUT12 concept: Like 135kg, 4 small wheelhub motors..

    I think they now have to really split the classes, I think the electric cars would now struggle again to keep up with the combustions but let's see what happens.
    -------------------------------------------
    Alumnus
    AMZ Racing
    ETH Zürich

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

    2014: FSA Engineering Design Judge

  2. #2
    I would really like to know how they are going to measure plenum volume. I can see this as being really annoying to get through technical inspection. Every turbo team is going to have to remove the entire intake, fill it with a measured amount of water, etc. I can just see the messy process make the combustion scrutineering take even longer. And at events which are not FSG, there is already not enough time for many of the teams to get through before the first dynamic day.
    Jay Swift
    Combustion Powertrain
    Global Formula Racing 2013-2014

  3. #3
    Agreed on the problem with measuring the plenum volume. Any real measurement is going to be a pain and take a lot more time, any "measurement" without removal of the intake it going to be too inaccurate for tech as teams are going to want to be right on the limit.
    Last edited by Trevor; 07-12-2014 at 02:10 PM. Reason: clarity...
    Trevor
    Oregon State Formula '08-'09
    Global Formula Racing '10 - present

  4. #4
    I don't know why they would increase the displacement of the engine as so many teams are going to smaller single engines. Sub 4 second accel times are being hit wit 600cc why would we need 650cc or 700cc. Also agree on the intake measuring that could really slow down an already slow process of tech. I think the areo rule are coming in due to the huge influx of large aero these past 3 seasons. My thought on throttle by wire should not be said on this forum.

    I do like that that they are spicing things up with the rule changes though.
    Craig Kellermann
    -Construction Science and Management (This is my Major)
    -University Of Texas-San Antonio
    -2011-present

    " Charge It To The Game "

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    717
    The Triumph 675 3 cylinder engine might be pretty interesting to run. Also there are some interesting 650 twins around. I think the justification for the larger engines was to increase secondhand availability of engines to teams. It is no secret that the 600s are more expensive secondhand due to FSAE, and the singles aren't exactly cheap. Given the restrictor these larger engines shouldn't give too much more (if any).

    It is nice to see a rule change that might help decrease costs for teams.

    Kev

  6. #6
    I like the removal or increase of the displacement limit, as the power is already limited by the restrictor, and there are a few good engines in the 600-700cc range which teams could use (although I'm happy with smaller personally). Plus, less rules is better IMHO.

    Throttle downstream of the restrictor is interesting. It makes a lot of sense for turbocharging, but it lets teams bypass the tradeoff of plenum volume vs throttle response by adding a turbo (depending on how the rule is worded). I still overall like it though. I think any plenum volume limit will be very hard to enforce, I don't like it at all.

    I am a strong supporter of electronic throttle control, for numerous reasons:
    *Decouples the driver demand from the engine response, allowing much improved optimization of the engine and powertrain, and additional powertrain requestors (e.g. traction control, shift torque, ...)
    *Allows innovative engine controls such as fuel-air control, spark reserve, quick fill, etc. more than simple engine mapping.
    *Allows shifting the control points for turbo, with the current throttle->restrictor->compressor->engine layout, which can help with pumping efficiency. This could be irrelevant with the new turbo layout anyway.
    *ETC is extremely important in industry. It's basically a requirement for any modern engine that must pass reasonably strict emissions standards. Even some Diesel engines now use electronic throttles, although differently (to drive higher EGR flow).

    *E-cars already drive-by-wire, there are already rules in place (in the electric section of the rules) to ensure the safety of these systems, and we already require a kill switch for safety.
    Andrew Palardy
    Kettering University - Computer Engineering, FSAE, Clean Snowmobile Challenge
    Williams International - Commercial Turbofan Controls and Accessories

    "Sometimes, the elegant implementation is a function. Not a method. Not a class. Not a framework. Just a function." ~ John Carmack

    "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" ~Arthur C. Clarke

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Hayward View Post
    The Triumph 675 3 cylinder engine might be pretty interesting to run. Also there are some interesting 650 twins around. I think the justification for the larger engines was to increase secondhand availability of engines to teams. It is no secret that the 600s are more expensive secondhand due to FSAE, and the singles aren't exactly cheap. Given the restrictor these larger engines shouldn't give too much more (if any).

    It is nice to see a rule change that might help decrease costs for teams.

    Kev
    Kevin,

    There was a team that showed up with a Triumph 675 sleeved down to 609 or something like that at Lincoln 2013. I do not think the car got through tech, I remember them complaining about design judges not liking the idea (they were in paddock right next to us), and one of the team members was ranting/raving about a simple car after Endurance, primarily dragging his team members to look at our car, which was entertaining. If they hadn't had to go through all of the engine redesign/customization stuff, I can only imagine what the results would have been. The only thing I can think would have happened was a lot of glorious glorious noise from that car.

    It still annoys me that the DbC noise check is being brought about after the committee was notified that teams were cheating the noise test. As I've said before, I do not care that they cheated if they think it gives them an advantage: If you think you gain hp or whatever by running loud, then run loud. It's when the rules committee members think they are legal on track as they passed the test (which they are not!) and then try to make rules changes around these perceptions. If that change goes through, purchasing an OTS muffler will no longer pass on a single cylinder, and we will likely see more teams running plugs to get through noise test and then pulling them after the test is passed.

    -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.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by mdavis View Post
    ...
    If that change goes through, purchasing an OTS muffler will no longer pass on a single cylinder, and we will likely see more teams running plugs to get through noise test and then pulling them after the test is passed.

    -Matt
    As with any rule, you can be request to show compliance at any point during the competition. I think in case of engine noise they should do that, at the fines which the track gets are directly charged to the organizers (e.g. FSAE) which is not in the interest of ALL teams.
    Tristan
    Delft '09 Team member, '10 - Chief Electronics
    'now' (Hardware) Security Engineer

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    717
    Matt,

    Looks like they could run the engine now without having to re-sleeve. Should offer similar advantages to the four, but with a narrower package (and maybe lower vibrations). I would love to know the base weight of one of the triumph engines. I am sure the judges probably disliked the idea of heavy customization to end up with an engine not much better than a standard 4 pot.

    Definitely not as radical as building a powertrain around something like a BMW R65 engine. An aircooled boxer engine could make for an interesting change.

    Opening up the options here doesn't hurt anyone, and definitely means more of the engines sitting around a wrecker will be suitable.

    Kev

  10. #10
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    The Ohio State
    Posts
    5
    Very interesting set of proposals, Overall they are much much better than the stuff proposed in the aero rules survey...

    I like the rear wing limit as it makes for a more interesting design challenge to promote clean airflow around the open cockpit. If you don't do a good job of managing the airflow around the cockpit your wing will have to be extremely tall which will ruin the handling of the car due to the CG penalty. I think its an interesting change that should promote some new concepts.

    I agree that the plenum size would be very difficult to regulate, especially for teams with active runners who wouldn't be super excited about flooding their electronics with water. The real issue here though is if the plenum volume restriction is applied to NA cars or just turbo ones? Possibly a different size could be applied to different cars (1L for FI 3L for NA, just random numbers)
    The Ohio State Formula Buckeyes
    2011: Suspension Minion
    2012: Suspension Lead
    2013: Team Captain & Suspension Lead
    2014: Tech. Director & Suspension Lead
    2015: Suspension Lead

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 19 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