+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 13 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 127

Thread: 1st revision of 2015 rules released

  1. #1

    Lightbulb 1st revision of 2015 rules released

    Just saw that the rules have finally been released, happy reading everyone!

    http://www.fsaeonline.com/page.aspx?...c-ec69aae080a3
    Johan Sahlström

    Lund University 2010-2015

  2. #2
    There's a *LOT* of issues with the ETC reqliability requirements being defined in therms of throttle % instead of torque % or something of that nature. As it is, there are a lot of cases where drivers request high torque e.g. to come out of a corner while still on the brakes, and we shouldn't be targeting such a strict limit (10% under 'heavy braking) with the analog reliability processor.

    There's also a LOT of good and bad changes in here that I wasn't expecting.
    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

  3. #3
    Andrew, I just looked at the rules, not an expert in those things but wasn't it always the plan that the rules from the electric cars when it comes to the "torque pedal" would be used for the combustions?
    Is there anything different compared to the way electric teams have to "safe" their system that you haven't thought of?

    Anyway,
    I think the aero rules are not well written. Too complicated, too many words. 2 zones: "allowed here" and "keep out here" would have been much easier and better. Sadly the RC didn't take take the Monash proposal into account...

    But besides aero, I haven't found a lot of game changers that would justify a delay of the rules.

    80kW for electric cars seem reasonable.
    -------------------------------------------
    Alumnus
    AMZ Racing
    ETH Zürich

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

    2014: FSA Engineering Design Judge

  4. #4
    There are a few differences:

    -The EV rules (in 2014) differentiate between mechanical and regenerative brakes for the purpose of torque reliability.
    -The 2015 IC rules section IC1.16 defines a 'brake plausibility device' which is non-programmable (e.g. built from discrete analog or digital components, not a secondary processor) which evaluates only the braking force (the rules say 'for example, >0.8G without locking the wheels') and the throttle position >10%, and shuts down the throttle power and fuel pump power in the event of an implausibility, in a way that is not resettable without resetting the main kill switch. This is extremely unreasonable, as drivers already request pedal when exiting a corner under heavy braking to either fill the manifold (so torque is ready as soon as they need it) or to spool a turbo. This entire brake plausibility device does not exist in the 2014 EV rules. It would be much more reasonable to ask teams to include processor or control system software failures in their FMEA, and design and reliability-test systems which can detect and handle a processor, control system, or software failure. For example, simply by adding an evaluation of the spark advance angle and/or the presence of spark and fuel control, it is possible to run a high throttle % with low torque % due to retarded spark or partial FSO (e.g. running a 4 cylinder engine on 2 cylinders).
    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

  5. #5
    I thought there was a plausability check in the EV rules.
    For us it was the "famous" EV 5.6 rule (I still can remember the rule number ). We also had to use a non-programmable logic that would open the relays. Still not sure if this is reasonable but should be the same for EV and IC.

    But to be fair, we don't have turbos to spool...
    -------------------------------------------
    Alumnus
    AMZ Racing
    ETH Zürich

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

    2014: FSA Engineering Design Judge

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by JulianH View Post
    I thought there was a plausability check in the EV rules.
    For us it was the "famous" EV 5.6 rule (I still can remember the rule number ). We also had to use a non-programmable logic that would open the relays. Still not sure if this is reasonable but should be the same for EV and IC.

    But to be fair, we don't have turbos to spool...
    It's fair to restrict torque during heavy braking, but not throttle position, as we have multiple ways to control torque and higher efficiency is attained the more open the throttle is (as pumping work goes down). We also have turbo's to spool, which we can do by running a high spark reserve (very retarded spark and increased airflow).
    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
    Not sure if anyone noticed, but FS Austria is listed in the rules as an Official event, congrats to all involved.

  8. #8
    I think Austria was official this year as well; might be wrong though...

    Rules are..interesting! As a side note to where the rules focus regarding safety should be, please take a look at this:

    https://twitter.com/flueglhuegl/stat...76664540565504
    Last edited by mech5496; 08-31-2014 at 07:25 PM.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,688
    Back when I had a job, anyone producing an Engineering specification like these 2015 Rules would be immediately SACKED! So many examples of bad workmanship..... (But how do you sack someone when you don't know who they are, because they keep hiding in the broom cupboard?)

    As just one example of this disgraceful work, these current Rules let you have razor-sharp edges ALL OVER your "Aerodynamic Devices" (whatever they are), EXCEPT if those edges happen to be ((forward-facing) AND (horizontal OR vertical)).

    So razor-sharp forward-facing edges at some angle other than horizontal or vertical are just fine.

    And razor-sharp wing Trailing-Edges are also perfectly legal.

    So now that the IRC has made this clear, all aero teams can start designing their TEs to Schick-sharpness (because sharper works better aerodynamically). I suggest a strip of hardened steel (maybe a band-saw blade?) bonded into the TE of the wing. Your gun driver can then get himself into that Zen-zone just before his record breaking lap, by chanting his mantras while honing the TE with a whetstone - "Perfect sharpness, perfect lap... Perfect sharpness, perfect lap...".

    Oh, and make sure you bring a copy of the "new improved" Rules to Scrutineering, so that you can prove your car is "legal".

    Z

  10. #10
    Generally the diagrams dont show the front wing restrictions particularly well, as the diagrams imply that nothing above 250mm is allowed in front of the front wheels, but the text contradicts this implying that once above the tyres in a frontal view a wing is legal.(The diagram T9.3.2 details that between 250-500 in front of the tyres is restricted, but the text T9.2.2 details that above 250 is un-restricted as long as the forward view of the tyres is unobstructed.) Why not just a blanket restriction on front wing height rather than all this complication?

    Cal Simraceway(Berkeley), whats the OD of your 8" wheels out of interest? as this would likely make the front wing little restricted. Also DUT are potentially have little restrictions with their small front tyres?

    Will read in more depth when I get home from work.

    Westly.
    Last edited by Westly; 08-31-2014 at 11:59 PM.
    Curtin Motorsport Team
    2011 - 2014

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 13 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