+ Reply to Thread
Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3 11 12 13
Results 121 to 127 of 127

Thread: 1st revision of 2015 rules released

  1. #121
    I'm about done bickering about the proposed sound rules here as the trend seems to be "either everyone is for restrictions or against restrictions....as long they don't affect them."
    I think it's absolutely unreasonable to take a engine that is quiet enough to keep the Californians happy, make it into a pseudo-race car powerplant, and make it quieter. That's been my point this whole time, not that it's hard, that it's unreasonable. I was fine with the 110dbA limit because that's right around GT cars and GP2 bikes, some real world connection there. So, I'd be fine with a 115 dBC limit. Let's do that to square some things up. It's a bit of a farce to base what the restrictions should be based on a fully exposed ear without hearing protection. Why is no one wearing hearing protection? That's silly.

    In most race series, ear protection requirements are a given, you show up as a spectator expecting to shell out a few dollars for earplugs for the family or bring your own. It's part of the experience. Things that are loud are exciting. Dynamite? Exciting. Gerbils. Not so exciting. Race cars that shake the grandstands as they blister by burning gallons of nitromethane? Exiting.

    In many parts of the world, sound is a major problem. The cities are loud, traffic noise seems non-stop, street bikes and modified cars tend to annoy fellow citizens, babies cry on a plane. But on race tracks, some people just can't get enough of it:


    If people want to quiet the vehicles down so that we no longer need to protect our ears properly during vehicle running and it's "a legit engineering exercise", I would welcome all of those proponents to come join the Clean Snowmobile Challenge. 100 db isn't that hard, it's just annoying in FSAE. In Snowmobile, with a WOT pass by, try to keep it under 75 dbA, that'll make you competitive and give a large area to learn from where subjective sound quality is also rated. Leave the sound competition to those concerned about sound on the trails and on the road, in all other cases tracks have their own noise limits which are different from road cars for a reason. My team's stock diesel truck pulling up in the paddock shouldn't be the loudest thing out there. I would also ask you to not similarly modify shop standards such that they are improved and no longer need safety glasses.

    Is it useless to compare to a road car? Maybe. But comparing to what are considered real world customer standards? Absolutely a parallel. If I were designing a road car, I'd expect to have some restrictions similar to current or future road cars. If I were building a vehicle to be autocrossed on the weekend I'd hope the results are somewhat within their expectations. If I were building a duck, I'll be damned it should quack like a duck...not some hippy duck that only quacks at 70dBC because it's been decided that the duck building competition is not about building ducks because real ducks quack too much anyway.

    I don't want to downplay that work and calculations that contributors have put towards these rules because I recognize serious thought has been put into this, especially by Tobias. I'm just saying it's been misplaced and/or overstretched a little.
    Last edited by MCoach; 09-24-2014 at 09:38 AM.
    Kettering University Vehicle Dynamics
    Formula SAE 2010 - 2015
    Clean Snowmobile Powertrain 2012 - 2015

    Boogityland 2015 - Present

  2. #122
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Kannapolis, NC

    And if you're wondering, this is what a 73 dBA driveby sounds like
    Any views or opinions expressed by me may in no way reflect those of Stewart-Haas Racing, Kettering University, or their employees, students, administrators or sponsors.

  3. #123
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    San Antonio, TX

    I prefer our 2014 72 dBA J192 passby test. The stock control sled tested at 89 dBA

    I'm sure Jay is pleased that FSAE has become an NVH competition. He once told me that, before he founded the Clean Snowmobile Challenge, he petitioned FSAE for increased weighting on NVH design importance. His request wasn't taken seriously (until now), so he founded the Clean Snowmobile Challenge.

    Gordon Blair is the voice of reason that we could use right now. He had the ICE and exhaust acoustics knowledge that the RC could certainly benefit from.
    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

  4. #124
    Per IC 1.16 (Brake System Plausibility Device for IC Engines with ETC)

    The team must devise a test to prove this required function during Electrical Tech Inspection.
    Also, per IC 1.14.2 (Brake System Encoder BSE)

    The BSE must have a separate detachable connector that enables detection of error states and the response of the ECU to be checked by unplugging it during Electrical Tech Inspection.
    Since IC vehicles are not required to complete Electrical Tech Inspection, are they procedurally exempt from these rules?

    The BSPD rule isn't even italicized to indicate it is a new rule. I wonder if they even read it before they copied and pasted it, let alone thought of it's implications.
    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. #125
    T8.2.3 Any vent on other systems containing liquid lubricant, i.e., a differential or gearbox, must have a
    catch-can with a minimum volume of ten (10) percent of the fluid being contained or 50ml, whichever
    is greater.

    So if I am reading this right, the way this rule is written anything with lubricant on the car is supposed to have a catch can for it. So teams with non bespoke engine currently using a chain drive differential are supposed to engineer some sort of rotating vent system for their differential now?

    I guess the wording is pretty straight forward, it's just hard for me to believe. It's not like you can just attach a small bottle to your fill port as the centripetal acceleration is likely to just cause the catch can to fill with fluid, which defeats the purpose.

    Unless you are completely filling your differential to the brim (which you shouldn't be doing) I don't see how this could be needed.
    Last edited by Some Guy; 10-01-2014 at 06:21 PM.
    UCONN FSAE: Old Guy #2

  6. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by Some Guy View Post
    T8.2.3 Any vent on other systems containing liquid lubricant, i.e., a differential or gearbox, must have a
    catch-can with a minimum volume of ten (10) percent of the fluid being contained or 50ml, whichever
    is greater.

    So if I am reading this right, the way this rule is written anything with lubricant on the car is supposed to have a catch can for it...
    Some Guy - My reading of this rule is that it only applies if there is a vent in that system. So a sealed drexler-type differential with no vents would not need a catch can.

    I am a fan of catch cans on everything with a vent, as long as the rules are reasonable. Nobody likes it when a track surface gets lubed up by a leaky car.
    Jay Swift
    Combustion Powertrain
    Global Formula Racing 2013-2014

  7. #127
    Ah, I see that now and that seems correct. That is what I get for trying to interpret rules on minimal sleep.
    UCONN FSAE: Old Guy #2

+ Reply to Thread
Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3 11 12 13

Posting Permissions

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