+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 75

Thread: Rules Reduction Recommendations

  1. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Stuttgart
    Posts
    494
    Thanks for the feedback first of all. I've been deeply involved in the rewriting of the rules. The idea was to generate a shorter more precise and understandable and better organised document than the original fsae rules whithout making it impossible to participate in competitions which are using the original rules.

    The frame rules should result in pretty much the same designs as the original rules as it would be impossible for the teams to change anything for specific competitions in this area. But the rules are shorter and more precise.

    The aero rules are a different subject. The actual target was to not make too many actual changes but to get rid of all measurenents which are given relative to the wheels or the track surface as they are highly dependant on suspension setup and therefore not really suitable.

    The rules for the static events were also completely revised but I have no inside in this area as I focused on the Technical requiremts. Any feedback regarding the new rules is highliy welcome and will be definitely considered and can be given at the fsg website.

    Btw: FS Austria will use the new rules as well next year. I can't tell about the other European events.
    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

  2. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    717
    Bemo,

    The aero rules are much better written and much most likely easier to inspect.

    They should result in significantly more downforce and some very obvious changes to basic car architecture:

    - High and possibly extended (forwards) impact attenuator plates
    - High cockpit sides
    - Super high rear roll-hoops
    - Roll hoop very rearwards

    I am still more of a fan of overall height / length / width as the way to control aero, but I will say well done for what you have done with this set of the rules. I hope the theme of reduction and clarification continue.

    Kev

  3. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Z View Post
    To summarize.
    * The idea of allowable "keep-in" zones is good.
    * Also good are the "cockpit/percy templates" (effectively, "keep-out" zones internal to the car).
    * Also good are real-world load test requirements (to help ensure driver safety), the seeds of which are in the "AF" section.
    So, keep the above parts in the Rules.

    Z

    (PS1: Much better tubeframe designs would be possible without the currently overly restrictive/prescriptive "Baseline" Rules.
    PS2: I agree "minimum wheelbase" could be tossed...)
    Z,

    I agree with the hard test requirements from AF rules. I made the NASTRAN deck and FEA test procedures standard for our frame designs from our team because I feel they are suitable safety targets which must still be followed that are not present from the standard rule set. I think the FEA requirements from AF rules should be required for standard or AF rules. Maybe it would give SAE something new to chase after instead of drawing standards: have all teams submit their FEA analysis for the SES.
    Kettering University Vehicle Dynamics
    Formula SAE 2010 - 2015
    Clean Snowmobile Powertrain 2012 - 2015

    Boogityland 2015 - Present

  4. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Stuttgart
    Posts
    494
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Hayward View Post
    I am still more of a fan of overall height / length / width as the way to control aero, but I will say well done for what you have done with this set of the rules. I hope the theme of reduction and clarification continue.
    Kev
    The question here is what you want to achieve. This is supposed to be a design competition. If you give fixed max. height, length and width measures for wings, you don't have to think about it anymore as a team. You just build a wing as big as possible.

    Giving measures relative to other parts of the car forces the teams to THINK about the ups and downs. If you build a very high roll hoop, the bracings will also become very long and their attachement point will move rearwards. These are significant disadvantages for your chassis design. So teams have to try to figure out the best compromise. This is the intent behind this method of measurement.

    Same for the AIP. If you build it very high and forward, you put a lot of extra weight in the car and the visibility of the driver might be compromised. Also hard to tell where the optimum is.
    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

  5. #55
    I really like and support this effort. My only concern is what happens when it comes to streamlining with other competitions. Coming from a small team, we usually operate on a 2-year plan. This year we planned on attending FSUK and probably FSG/FSA. If these competitions have significantly different rule sets, it will take twice the thought before entering..

  6. #56
    I understand your opinion. But this is another real life engineering problem. You have to prioritize everything. Now this includes the competitions you take part.
    And perhaps FSAE will adapt their rules such that they are compatible for 2018. In that case, the problem only exists for one year.

  7. #57
    Totally agree with you, if in 2018 everything turns up to be similar. Otherwise, it would be a step backwards. Personally speaking, we have found a way around it, but for most of the teams it would be either FSG/FSA or FSUK etc.

  8. #58
    I can only second what has been said.
    It is great to have these new rules.

    Bemo,
    one advice/favor: Please make clear to the students who exactly is the body behind those rules and who the people can talk to (over a beer at the Mahle party for example) if they want to discuss something.
    When I was an active member (and sadly the rules geek of Zurich), it was super frustrating to not be able to talk to the guys that made the rules. It was like a dark anonymous amorph cloud that could not be touched.
    I know how much work people put into these things and I am certain that everyone re-writing those rules thought about stuff and can explain the decisions made.
    Please give the students the chance to understand it, discuss it and make the rules better every year.


    It's a shame that UK decided to use the FSAE rules and therefore basically splitting the European competitions.
    It was a lot of work until we have "merged" rules, therefore it's a shame to see that going in the opposite direction. Knowing the FSAE Rules Committee, I doubt that they will adapt their 2018 Rules to these "new rules"... Hopefully they prove me wrong.

    (And maybe UK can finally grab a home victory know if the Germans and Dutch and Swiss don't participate )
    -------------------------------------------
    Alumnus
    AMZ Racing
    ETH Zürich

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

    2014: FSA Engineering Design Judge

  9. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Bemo View Post
    The question here is what you want to achieve. This is supposed to be a design competition. If you give fixed max. height, length and width measures for wings, you don't have to think about it anymore as a team. You just build a wing as big as possible.

    Giving measures relative to other parts of the car forces the teams to THINK about the ups and downs. If you build a very high roll hoop, the bracings will also become very long and their attachement point will move rearwards. These are significant disadvantages for your chassis design. So teams have to try to figure out the best compromise. This is the intent behind this method of measurement.

    Same for the AIP. If you build it very high and forward, you put a lot of extra weight in the car and the visibility of the driver might be compromised. Also hard to tell where the optimum is.

    I'm expecting to see a few cars show up to FSG that look representative to 2013 Formula 1 cars. Sitting down and drawing a few boxes of where areo devices fit, there seems to be a direction to go to maximize the size of those boxes. Reading over the current aero and frame rules for FSG, if I were to design a car to that ruleset, I would honestly consider significant changes to the design from my last car. Some limitations that seemed arbitrary in the standard FSAE rules have been removed here or changed the reference point. I'm excited to see where this goes.

    I am surprised to see that the bodywork rules are extremely nonrestrictive and hesitant to give any ideas or ask questions here as to the intention of that. Bemo, is there any concern for abuse of what is considered bodywork, a structural component, or an aero device, and how that will be legislated?

    In my line of work, you know you've found the limit of "what is considered an aero device" when trying to roll through tech inspection and the inspectors say you're good to go...but at the same time laughing, calling other inspectors over, shaking their head, pointing fingers, and all taking pictures of your car. Yep, never going to get that design through again...
    Kettering University Vehicle Dynamics
    Formula SAE 2010 - 2015
    Clean Snowmobile Powertrain 2012 - 2015

    Boogityland 2015 - Present

  10. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    231
    Quote Originally Posted by MCoach View Post
    In my line of work, you know you've found the limit of "what is considered an aero device" when trying to roll through tech inspection and the inspectors say you're good to go...but at the same time laughing, calling other inspectors over, shaking their head, pointing fingers, and all taking pictures of your car. Yep, never going to get that design through again...

    Whenever new FSAE rule sets were published I always enjoyed checking to see if they directly addressed something we had done.
    Over the years we racked up several changes just for us

    -William

+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 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